Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Assets Recovery

Harry Barnes: If he will make a statement on the work of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Love: If he will make a statement on the use of powers by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to confiscate assets.

Jane Kennedy: I have been informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Northern Ireland branch of the Assets Recovery Agency has 10 cases which are currently under active investigation. I have every confidence that the Assets Recovery Agency is getting to grips with the problem in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on Monday of this week the agency was granted a freezing order for £1.5 million-worth of assets allegedly derived from drug dealing. I believe that there is much more to come.

Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and its interest in the genesis of the Assets Recovery Agency, as reflected in its report on the financing of terrorism. However, many problems arise from local hoodlums being involved in activities such as the drugs issue that she mentioned and which the Select Committee is investigating. Will she ensure that those areas are tackled?

Jane Kennedy: I welcome the interest that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee takes in these matters, particularly the development of the Assets Recovery Agency. The agency will not only target the so-called Mr. Bigs and the kingpins of organised criminality, but will take a great interest in local hoodlums who, as my hon. Friend says, do so much to blight their communities.

Andrew Love: The agency was only established in February this year under new legislation which, by common consent, is complex. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are sufficient resources for both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Assets Recovery Agency to ensure that we make inroads into drug trafficking, particularly among paramilitary groups?

Jane Kennedy: Through the work of the organised crime taskforce we have a better understanding of the nature of organised criminality in Northern Ireland and the links between organised crime and paramilitary organisations. However, there is also better co-ordination between the agencies in their efforts to tackle that. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Assets Recovery Agency remain in regular and close touch with my office about the resources that they require to complete their work, and I am confident that both organisations have the necessary resources. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is a highly effective police force. The drug squad in particular deserves special commendation by the House for its success in recent weeks.

Roy Beggs: I congratulate the organised crime task force, PSNI and customs and trading standards officials on their recent successes, which prevented paramilitaries and criminals from benefiting from the sale of fake goods at Ballycastle and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell the House when an evaluation of the work of the Assets Recovery Agency will be carried out, whether she is willing, if necessary, to strengthen the legislation under which it operates, and whether that can be done without creating another all-Ireland body?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am in regular contact with the chief executive of the Assets Recovery Agency, her deputy and the Chief Constable. None of them has expressed any specific concerns about the legislative framework, but obviously the legislation will be reviewed in due course as a matter of routine. The Police Service of Northern Ireland already enjoys a close working relationship with its counterparts in An Garda Siochana. It could not enjoy the success that it does without that very good working relationship. At the end of May this year, senior representatives of both PSNI and the Garda met to discuss proposals to develop a joint cross-border organised crime threat assessment. I believe that we can further develop and cement those good working relationships. I am always open to further ideas about ways in which we can strengthen the performance of those organisations, and I will consider any such ideas that are offered.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister give an assurance that all the necessary resources will be given to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Assets Recovery Agency in their fight against organised crime and paramilitary fund-raising—a point that was made in the Select Committee's report on the financing of terrorism, to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred? On a more general point, will the Minister review the issue of resources for the police generally in the fight against crime in Northern Ireland? My constituents complain to me all the time about the lack of response, manpower and police on the streets. Can the Minister ensure that adequate resources are provided to make sure that people are safe on the streets of Northern Ireland?

Jane Kennedy: As I have already said, I keep these matters under constant review and remain in very close touch with both the Chief Constable and the chief executive of the Assets Recovery Agency. I believe that the agency is being adequately funded. As the hon. Gentleman and members of the Select Committee will know, the initial budget was established at £13 million, but that will be kept under review. There are about 90 staff in total in the UK, and 17 of them are attached to the Belfast branch. I believe that the Belfast branch deserves particular commendation for the success that it has had in the very short period since its establishment.

John Taylor: Is the agency adequately resourced by comparison with its counterpart in the Republic, or does the Minister share the serious concerns about that indicated by the Select Committee?

Jane Kennedy: The short answer is no. I believe that the Assets Recovery Agency is adequately funded and, indeed, that the Northern Ireland branch is adequately resourced, although I obviously keep such matters under constant review. The success of the agency is very important because its success will continue to underpin that of law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland in their battle against organised crime.

Decommissioning

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the extent of verifiable decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives in Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: There have been three acts of decommissioning to date—one by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and two by the Provisional IRA. Each has been verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in accordance with the Government's schemes and regulations.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. I congratulate his Minister of State on her membership of Her Majesty's Privy Council. I know no more charming member of the Privy Council.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that verifiable decommissioning should have taken place many years ago? Will he give me an assurance that no further concessions will be made to any terrorist organisation—Sinn Fein-IRA or any other organisation—before such decommissioning has taken place? Otherwise, the whole process of confidence of the people of Northern Ireland will be undermined.

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I can testify to her intelligence and ability, as well as to her charm.
	The hon. Gentleman is aware that decommissioning was a very important part of the Good Friday agreement. It is a vital part of ensuring that confidence in that agreement is maintained in Northern Ireland. He can also rest assured that the negotiations and discussions that will now obviously be important in coming weeks will, among many other things, deal with decommissioning as well.

Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention of arms by any group distorts the whole political process, so it is crucial that all paramilitary activity be ended to ensure that we can restore a bit of trust in normal political processes?

Paul Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, he is aware that the reason why we could not come to an agreement in March and April this year is that, although we achieved some successes, we failed at the end of the day to agree on how to deal with the items identified in the joint declaration as dealing with paramilitary activity. Those issues are still important and will be an important part of the negotiations that we face in the next few weeks.

Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember 27 November, when he was sitting beside the Prime Minister, who made it clear in answering a question that I asked him during Prime Minister's questions that there could be no further progress towards peace in Northern Ireland until the matter of acts of completion was dealt with—and that those acts of completion were not merely words, but real acts of giving up weaponry? Why is it that the legislation that will shortly be put before the House on Northern Ireland contains no mention whatever of acts of completion? Why is this important matter off the agenda when the Prime Minister said that there could be no further progress until—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State will manage a reply.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the one of the duties of the independent monitoring commission is to monitor paramilitary activity. That is crucial to the success of the peace process in Northern Ireland. He is also aware that the joint declaration defined that activity as including surveillance, targeting, procurement of weapons, incitement to riot and so-called punishment beatings. Those are all hugely important issues that we have to tackle. The task of the new commission is to investigate such activities, then to report to the Assembly and to me.

Belfast Agreement

Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the state of the implementation of the Belfast agreement.

Paul Murphy: The central issue remains that only by restoring trust and confidence can we get stable and inclusive devolved institutions up and running again. We have taken positive steps towards that—most recently, as I mentioned just now, with the announcement of substantive progress on the independent monitoring commission. It is also necessary to have clarity on the ending of paramilitarism and on the stability of the institutions, once restored. We will continue to engage with the parties in Northern Ireland, and I hope that that will lead to the early progress that we all want.

Andrew Robathan: It is now five and a half years since the Belfast agreement. Critically, as the Secretary of State said, terrorist arsenals remain intact and the institutions of the agreement are largely suspended. How does that leave the review of the agreement that, according to page 26 of the agreement, is planned for four years after its implementation, and which is due in December? There are no parties in the Assembly to call for the review. Will the review go forward and what is the Government's position on it, as a whole?

Paul Murphy: The position is that it was decided in the Good Friday agreement—in paragraph 8, I think—that there should be a review after four years. People in Ireland, north and south, voted for the agreement, so they obviously expect the review. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it refers to parties in the Assembly. Of course, it was anticipated at the time that the Assembly would be up and running at the time of the review. Although the agreement is not a legal document, but a political document, we all hope that elections will be held before the year is out so that there will indeed be parties in the Assembly to participate in the review.

John Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that the overwhelming consent of the people of Northern Ireland was given to the Good Friday agreement; that the principle of consent has always been central to Unionism; that that principle of consent is now accepted by all other parties in Ireland, north and south; and that if those parties that are trying to overthrow the agreement succeed in not having it implemented, they are completely overthrowing the principle of the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, which means that if there has to be a future agreement it would be confined solely to the two Governments to work it out together?

Paul Murphy: Of course we do not want to get into the situation whereby it is for the two Governments to work it out together, as my hon. Friend suggests. It is for the parties and the Government in Northern Ireland to be able to come to a proper settlement. He is right to remind the House that the principle of consent is central to the Good Friday agreement and that people north and south overwhelmingly voted for that. I still believe that the Good Friday agreement is the best way forward and that the majority of people in Ireland believe that as well.

David Trimble: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is still the Government's policy that there must be effective and substantial acts of completion—which is a euphemism for complete decommissioning and effective disbandment—before there can be a resumption of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Can he give his assessment of whether we will see early movement on effective acts of completion?

Paul Murphy: I sincerely hope that there will be early movement on such acts. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in March and April we made considerable progress over a number of weeks—although not enough, of course, to be able to do what we wanted in setting up the institutions. I believe that by working on what occurred in March and April, and because all parties in Northern Ireland want to make progress, we can be hopeful that there will be progress on acts of completion in order to ensure that we can get the institutions up and running again.
	The right hon. Gentleman is aware—more than anybody, I suppose—that we want to get not only the Assembly but the Executive up and running in Northern Ireland. The establishment of that Executive must be based on mutual trust, understanding and confidence among the parties that make it up.

Seamus Mallon: When the Secretary of State presents the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill next week, will he ensure that the measure requires parties in the Executive to attend Executive meetings and north-south ministerial meetings as part of their duties and to ensure that they assume collective responsibility along with their ministerial colleagues? Will he ensure that the Bill deals with such breaches of rules or will they be put on the long finger again? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for the private conversations, which are unfair to Northern Ireland Question Time, to cease before the Secretary of State replies?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right that the independent monitoring commission will deal, among other matters, with political breaches of the Good Friday agreement. He also knows that the commission will report to the implementation group in the Northern Ireland Assembly. There will be an opportunity next week to debate that in detail. It is therefore up to the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider the best way to deal with such a report. I repeat that we shall debate those matters in greater detail next week.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State accept that the implementation of the Belfast agreement is going nowhere unless and until the Northern Ireland Assembly is allowed to renew its democratic mandate? Will he therefore take the opportunity to confirm that elections will be held in the autumn and that there will be no further postponement, which would constitute cancellation?

Paul Murphy: No one wants postponement or cancellation of elections. Earlier, I said that we all want the elections to take place before the year is out. I repeat the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble): that we want the other institutions as well as the Assembly to work again. Of course, we want the Northern Ireland Assembly to be up and running, but we also want the Government of Northern Ireland to do those things that my fellow Ministers and I currently have to undertake on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not enough for the nationalist community to give its support to the Belfast agreement and that we can have no lasting, stable political structures unless both sections of the community support them? The support of half the Ulster Unionist party, which represents less than half of the Unionist community, is not sufficient to provide that consent. Will he therefore allow politicians to get a mandate for new negotiations for an agreement that has the support of both sections of the community?

Paul Murphy: I agree that, for the agreement to work, it must have the commitment of both sides of the community—Unionist and nationalist—in Northern Ireland. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that the Unionist people are opposed to successful implementation of the Belfast agreement. He knows that the latest opinion poll in Northern Ireland showed that most Protestant and Unionist people want the agreement to work. I still believe that it is the best way forward.

Iain Luke: As the Secretary of State said, there has been agreement that the best way forward for all the people of Northern Ireland is reconciliation and the restart of the Belfast agreement. Given that the breakdown and suspension of the Executive last year was due to extra-political activity in Stormont, can he give evidence of willingness on the nationalist side, especially on Sinn Fein's part, to play a more constructive and positive role in bringing about the negotiations?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the republican movement in Sinn Fein and that of the IRA in ensuring that the IRA undertakes the necessary acts of completion so that people in Northern Ireland—nationalist and Unionist—can have proper confidence.

Quentin Davies: I must take up the Secretary of State on an answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He implied that the four-year review for which the agreement provides could take place in December, whether or not the Assembly was in place. Is that seriously what he meant? Has he forgotten the provision in paragraph 8 of the agreement that the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly must summon the review?

Paul Murphy: Of course I have not. I was present when the agreement was signed and helped to make it. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—I was referring specifically to parties in the Assembly. The document in question is not a legal document. It is imperative that we have an Assembly up and running; that is what everyone wants. The parties in that Assembly will take part in the review.

Quentin Davies: It might not be a legal document, but it is a very finely balanced one that has resulted from extremely delicate negotiations, in which the Secretary of State took part. It cannot be unilaterally rewritten in part. This is just one reason among many why, if we are to make any progress in the peace process, the Government really must stop shilly-shallying and call an election.

Paul Murphy: No one wants to rewrite the agreement; no one is suggesting that. I am merely pointing out to the hon. Gentleman the facts in relation to the paragraph 8 review. He is right to say that everyone wants an Assembly in Northern Ireland, but we also want a Government there and a review. I sincerely hope that all three will be achievable before the year is out.

Sea Fishing

Ann Winterton: What assessment he has made of the future economic viability of the Northern Ireland sea fishing industry.

Ian Pearson: The Northern Ireland sea fishing industry continues to land top-quality fish that is much sought after at home and abroad, and I am confident that it has a viable economic future. The Prime Minister's strategy unit is currently undertaking a review of the medium-term prospects for the UK sea fishing industry as a whole, and hopes to report around the end of this year—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady asks her supplementary question, I would say again that the noise level in the Chamber is unfair to Members who wish to speak.

Ann Winterton: I rather regret that the Minister has not recognised that the first six months of this year have been the worst for the Northern Ireland sea fishing industry for many years, going back in some cases to the mid-1980s. Bearing in mind the industry's grim future, will the Minister therefore undertake personally to visit fishing enterprises in the Province that have been disadvantaged and suffered losses because of European Union decisions? Will he discuss with them retrospective and future aid to secure their future?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Lady is clearly unaware that I meet representatives from the fishing industry on a regular basis. Following the decisions of last December's Fisheries Council, I immediately launched a fishing villages taskforce, which is due to report shortly, and which has members of the fishing community on it. We have also announced a vessel decommissioning scheme, and the Government have put in about £20 million to support the industry over the past five years. We are clearly listening, and we want to support the fishing industry to ensure that it has an economic and environmentally sustainable future.

David Burnside: The Minister seems to be badly out of touch with the fishing communities in Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. Is he aware that the white fish quota has already almost been met by the fishing fleet in that part of Northern Ireland? Will he speak to his opposite number during the next negotiations in Brussels and get a proper, increased quota for white fish in the Irish sea? There has been a considerable increase in stocks, but the fishing industry in Northern Ireland is not benefiting from it.

Ian Pearson: I am aware of the implications of the December decision on the swingeing reduction in tax that took place. I talk regularly to representatives of the industry and to UK and other European Fishery Ministers about this issue. It is important that we act on the basis of the best available science, and I understand that the industry disputes some of the science. We have to act on the basis of the science, however, and to take measures that are in the best long-term interests of the fishing industry to ensure that we have sustainable stocks of fish.

George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that when I was in Derry on Saturday, I was able to buy my fish with euros? In that respect, is Northern Ireland not the most progressive part of the United Kingdom?

Ian Pearson: Northern Ireland is a very progressive community. It has done extremely well economically over the past five years. Its economic performance has been better than that of any other UK region, and I am convinced that it has a bright economic future, given a peaceful and sustainable society.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nick Hawkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 September.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I know the whole House will join with me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the British people—serving soldiers and others—who have lost their lives in Iraq since the House rose on 17 July. They were doing an extraordinary and heroic job in trying to bring normal and decent life to people in Iraq, and the whole country and their families can be immensely proud of them, even as they mourn them.
	In particular, we should mention Fiona Watson, who was a servant of this House for many years with very distinguished service, and someone who is not British, the United Nations Special Representative Sergio de Mello, who tragically lost his life in the terrorist outrage on the United Nations building.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Nick Hawkins: Conservative Members echo the Prime Minister's initial words. Given the disastrous summer that he and his Government have had, what is his definition of "deceit"?

Tony Blair: We all know what that is. As to the summer, it is important to recognise that the British economy is in better shape than virtually any other. There have been 1.5 million extra jobs since we came to power, we have had the best ever school results, a further fall in waiting lists, a halving of the number of asylum seekers, and we now have the pensioner tax credit, which gives help to pensioners for them to look forward to.

Mohammad Sarwar: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to my constituent Fusilier Russell Beeston, following his funeral yesterday?

Tony Blair: Certainly, we join my hon. Friend in offering our deep sympathy and condolences to the family of his constituent, as I am sure will everyone in the House.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our servicemen out in Iraq who are risking their lives, and particularly to the families of those servicemen who have lost their lives? It is also worth reflecting on the fact that one of our hon. Friends is still serving in those dangerous zones.
	If it becomes clear that the Secretary of State for Defence misled the Intelligence and Security Committee, will the Prime Minister dismiss him?

Tony Blair: I think it quite wrong that we make any assumptions until we see the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which is to be presented to me tomorrow. It would be wrong to comment on it before that is done.

Iain Duncan Smith: Senior Downing street officials are already spinning their version of the leak. It is in the newspaper report. The point is that with new troop deployments in Iraq, surely it is absolutely essential that there be complete confidence in the Defence Secretary? How can the Prime Minister justify leaving him twisting in the wind, when it is in his power to end all the uncertainty and speculation and publish the report right now?

Tony Blair: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, if he has evidence that somebody from Downing street has put the report into the newspapers, perhaps he would produce it now, because I believe that to be completely untrue.
	In respect of the Defence Secretary, we should recognise that over these past few months, under his leadership in the Ministry of Defence, we have won a magnificent victory in Iraq; our troops are now engaged heroically in rebuilding that country; and, if I may repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman, we should see what the Intelligence and Security Committee, and, indeed, the Hutton inquiry, say when the reports are published.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister knows very well that his own officials are briefing on it even as we stand here. Is not the leaked report another nail in the coffin of this Government?
	You can get rid of Campbell; you can even get rid of the Defence Secretary. But the lying and the spinning will not stop until we get rid of this Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: It is a measure of the right hon. Gentleman's objectivity that he has decided what the report says before it has actually been published. [Interruption.] It is no use holding up a piece of paper. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not wait until the report is actually published tomorrow? It is to be presented to me by the Committee. Perhaps in the light of that report tomorrow the right hon. Gentleman can make his comments clear. I simply say to him that, rather than deciding what that report or the report of the Hutton inquiry says before it is published, we should actually wait and see and not make up our minds beforehand.

Claire Ward: Today, booklets published by Tory-controlled Hertfordshire county council have been landing on the doormats of parents all over Watford who are due to send their children to school next September, telling them that consultations have taken place on the closure of Leavesden Green school and that the last intake of pupils will be in January next year. In fact no formal consultation has taken place, and councils have not even voted on the issue. The community is overwhelmingly against the proposal.
	This is an outrageous deceit of the community, and an insult to democracy. Will my right hon. Friend ensure—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister can answer.

Tony Blair: Obviously I am not aware of the details of the consultation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I think she has made a powerful case.

Charles Kennedy: When President Bush delivered his televised address to the United States a couple of days ago, he specifically chose not to refer once to weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that we can now expect the Prime Minister to follow suit?

Tony Blair: No. The reason we went to conflict is absolutely clear—the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. We should allow the Iraq survey group to do its work; but as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the notion that the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was invented by British or American intelligence is absurd.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last November the whole United Nations came together and agreed that as a result of Saddam and his attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, he was a security threat to the entire world. This is not an issue to do with British or American intelligence. It has to do with the stated facts, mainly contained in UN weapons inspectors' reports.

Charles Kennedy: Given that the position in Iraq remains dangerously unstable, given that Iraqi citizens are still being denied basic necessities and resources, and recognising—as the British public do—the need to bolster the safety of our forces in the country, does the Prime Minister not realise that what the public also seek from the Government is a clear lead in the attempt to internationalise the situation there under the auspices and authority of the UN itself?

Tony Blair: Today there are already more non-US and non-UK troops in Iraq than there are UK troops—some 15,000. The new UN resolution will help to bring in further troops. It is true that the situation in Iraq is extremely difficult, but it is worth pointing out that much progress has been made. For example, all the hospitals are now open and functioning, and some 5.5 million children managed to take their end-of-year exams in June and July for the first time in ages. It is also the case that we are doing our level best to get the country back on its feet. We now have an Iraqi governing council that actually represents the people of Iraq.
	The right hon. Gentleman says, "Should we not be worried about the situation?" Yes, of course we should, but the answer is not to run away from Iraq. The answer is not to turn our back on the task. The answer is to see the task through, because it was the right thing to do at the time, it is the right thing to do now, and we will get the job done.

Iraq

Tam Dalyell: If he will discuss the military position in Iraq with President Bush.

Tony Blair: I have regular discussions with President Bush on a wide range of issues, and of course that includes the continuing military operations in Iraq.

Tam Dalyell: In the light of the letter from Captain Peter Kimm, Royal Navy retired, to which I drew the Prime Minister's attention on Monday—it was published in The Times on 29 August—did certain of the chiefs of staff, led by the then chief of defence staff, without the knowledge of the chief of air staff, express their unease to the Prime Minister on Sunday 9 March about going to war in Iraq, not least in relation to the legality of what he and President Bush were asking the forces to do?

Tony Blair: No, that is not correct—none of the chiefs of staff expressed such unease to me. If I may I shall quote to my hon. Friend from the then chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire, who said on 31 August:
	"As far as I am concerned there's absolutely no truth in it whatsoever."

Richard Taylor: May I thank the Prime Minister for paying tribute to those who have died in Iraq, and draw his attention to the case of Ian Rimell of Kidderminster, a bomb disposal expert who was working for the Mines Advisory Group? He was murdered while driving home from his work defusing shells, while in a clearly marked MAG vehicle. May I also ask the Prime Minister to express his sympathy to Mr. Rimell's wife and three grown-up children, who are devastated by this pointless loss, which was not due to his work? Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the only fitting memorial for Ian Rimell is the establishment of a humanitarian, protected zone for workers who are doing this crucial business of defusing mines and shells? Will he consider instituting that?

Tony Blair: I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of Ian Rimell and of the serious wounding of his colleague Salim Ahmed Mohammed, which took place near Mosul on 4 September. I pay tribute to Ian Rimell and to the other people doing similar work in Iraq.
	UK and Danish teams have to date cleared some 350,000 unexploded munitions in Iraq, and it is worth while mentioning that as well as our serving soldiers, there are many people in Iraq from non-governmental organisations—they are doing tremendous humanitarian work—whose lives are also at risk. I have to say, however, that their lives are at risk from people who do not recognise any humanitarian zone, and who do not recognise any concept of humanitarian protection. These are people who have committed outrages on the United Nations and on people worshipping at the mosque in Iraq. These people are terrorists who want to stand in the way of precisely the type of Iraq that Ian Rimell and others wanted to see. The best memorial to him, in my view, would be to make sure that we see the job done and create an Iraq that is stable, democratic and prosperous.

Engagements

Mark Tami: Antisocial behaviour, often fuelled by under-age drinking, continues to blight many of our areas. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the police to take tougher action to combat drinking on our streets, particularly by juveniles?

Tony Blair: The provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, which I think come into effect today, will give the police additional powers in respect of the abuse of alcohol, and in particular in respect of cracking down on antisocial behaviour caused by alcohol. These measures, along with the other measures in the legislation that we are introducing on antisocial behaviour, give the police hugely important additional powers in dealing with what is, in many constituencies up and down the country, the single biggest issue of concern to people.

George Osborne: Given that the Prime Minister has a copy of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, what reason does he give for not publishing it today?

Tony Blair: The proper procedure is that the Intelligence and Security Committee present the report to me tomorrow. That is the right way of doing it, and it should be done in accordance with the procedure that we laid out. It would be quite wrong of us to do it in any other way.

Iain Luke: Prime Minister: you are an outstanding example of a Scot who has benefited from coming south to study at one of the UK's most prestigious universities. Will you accept that concern exists that the top-up fees proposal will deter Scots from following suit, and create a golden triangle of research-based universities in the south-east, to the great disadvantage of universities throughout the UK? Recent polls have shown that 80 per cent. of people are opposed to the proposal. Will my right hon. Friend now think again?

Tony Blair: What surely is important is that universities get additional access to funds, either from the taxpayer or through a contribution from students once they graduate. It is also important that we widen access so that more and more people go to university. We have said that we want half of all school leavers in this country to go to university, but we cannot do that unless we extend the funds available to universities. That is precisely why it is important that we proceed with the reforms that we have set out. It would be disastrous to adopt, for example, the policies of the Conservative party, which would mean 100,000 fewer students going to university every year.

Iain Duncan Smith: In public, the Government say that the European constitution is just a tidying-up exercise. In private, we know that the Prime Minister has said that it is absolutely fundamental and will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe for generations. Which of these two faces of the Government should we believe?

Tony Blair: Of course the outcome of the convention is absolutely fundamental, which is why it is right that we secured the positions on foreign policy, defence and tax that preserve Britain's identity as a nation state, at the same time as making the changes necessary so that Europe at 25 can govern itself and operate effectively. That is why the draft constitution for Europe is good for Europe and for Britain, and essential if we are to make enlargement work and secure British interests.

Iain Duncan Smith: Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said that if the European constitution were about fundamental change, he would hold a referendum. He has told his Cabinet in secret that it is absolutely fundamental. So where is the referendum?

Tony Blair: The outcome of the constitution, of course, is fundamental, which is why it is important that we have secured the positions that we set out. What I said to the right hon. Gentleman was that if we ended up in a situation where we were giving up, for example, our right to set our own tax rates, it would be appalling; but we are not. The right hon. Gentleman is opposed to any constitution in Europe at all and would veto it. We see that that is what the Conservatives nod their heads to. Let us try the old game with him: there are 25 Governments in Europe, some Labour, some Conservative. Name me one that is in favour of his position.

Iain Duncan Smith: What is absolutely clear is that the Prime Minister says one thing to his Cabinet and another thing to everyone else. Whether it is the Kelly tragedy or the TUC speech that he never actually delivered—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak. [Interruption.] Mr. King, you must be quiet.

Iain Duncan Smith: They do not want to hear it because it is true. Whether it is the Kelly tragedy, last night's TUC speech that he did not actually deliver or the deliberate deceit about the European constitution, is it not true, now as ever, that no one will ever believe a word that the Prime Minister says any more?

Tony Blair: In relation to the European constitution, I note that the right hon. Gentleman could not tell us a single other Government who support his position. So that the country understands, his position would mean that he would go to the conference in Italy in a few weeks and veto the whole thing. No one else would support him and the Conservatives would then get to where they want to be: saying that Britain should get out of the EU. That is their game; it is what they want.
	On trust, the additional jobs in our economy are important, as are the lowest inflation and mortgage rates. The fact that we have the lowest long-term unemployment in this country for more than 30 years is important, as is the fact that we have 25,000 extra teachers and 50,000 extra nurses. Also, the fact that every single aspect of NHS waiting is better than in 1997 is important. That is what we were elected to do and what we will continue to do.

Phil Sawford: I welcome the publication of the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", which seeks to address the problems, issues and failures highlighted in the Laming report. I welcome also the proposal for a children's commissioner. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that sufficient parliamentary time is available to get this measure through as quickly as possible? Will he ensure also that there are clear lines of accountability for the welfare of our children in the future?

Tony Blair: I think that the proposals that we set out in the Green Paper on children will help enormously. I know that my hon. Friend would want to put the proposals for the children's commissioner alongside the other measures that the Government are taking to help some of the most disadvantaged children in our country. The sure start programme has, I believe, been enormously successful along with additional child benefit, the working families tax credit, free nursery education and more child care places for many families in the most disadvantaged parts of our country. Step by step we are trying to create a situation in which no child is denied the opportunity to make the most of their abilities, but that can be done only if we keep the investment going through to our local communities.

Richard Ottaway: Given that the Prime Minister is one of the few people left in Britain who does not think that the September 2002 dossier was sexed up—

George Foulkes: He had an e-mail from Gilligan!

Richard Ottaway: Can the Prime Minister explain how inserting chemical and biological material into battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry poses a threat to the region or the stability of the world?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of allegations about the dossier, perhaps it would be right to wait for the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee report tomorrow and, indeed, the Hutton inquiry report at a later time. In respect of the Conservatives' position, however, their opportunism on the issue of Iraq is absolutely unbelievable. Here they are, yet as I recall it, they as a political party were urging me to take action against Saddam. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was urging that long before the dossier even came along. Now they go around the country saying that we were duped and misled by this terrible Prime Minister who got us into the situation of conflict. What they should learn over time is that, if they want to be an effective Opposition—never mind an effective Government—a little less opportunism would be a good idea.

Chris Ruane: The Prime Minister will be aware of my one-and-a-half hour Adjournment debate this afternoon on seaside town regeneration, and I hope that he finds time in his busy schedule to attend it. Failing that, will he support the calls for a dedicated Minister to be responsible for seaside town regeneration? Will he also support the call for ring-fenced funding for seaside regeneration similar to the amounts given to coal, steel, rural and inner city communities?

Tony Blair: Actually, I am aware of my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate—it is on the Order Paper. It is worth pointing out to my hon. Friend that, for the first time, we are making sure that seaside towns, some of which may be relatively prosperous, but many of which have real pockets of deprivation and poverty, are eligible for assistance. My hon. Friend will know that there are two communities in the area that he represents which have had hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding, and we obviously want to do anything more that we can to assist them. The fact that these seaside towns are now recognised as suitable for the new deal for the regeneration of local communities shows that we recognise that although, as I said, there is prosperity among parts of our seaside communities, there is also a great deal of poverty and deprivation.

Michael Spicer: Why are the Government currently borrowing at the rate of £35 billion a year, when only four months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the figure was £24 billion?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman should wait for the pre-Budget report for the figures, but if he looks at the debt:GDP ratio, it is a darn sight better than it was when his Government were in power. I seem to recall that he was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government when interest rates were between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., 3 million people were unemployed, and borrowing reached £80 billion. Whoever else can give us lessons on prudent finance, it is certainly not the hon. Gentleman.

George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the relative lack of interest on the part of the British people in the European Union is the widespread belief that it is effectively the fiefdom of the political elite? In addition to other good reasons for holding a referendum on the new constitution, would not such a move instil greater interest among the British people in EU matters and effectively show them that their views really do matter on these vital issues?

Tony Blair: I think that my hon. Friend should have a little more faith in our parliamentary debates to deal with the issues. In joining with the Conservatives and calling for a referendum, he should bear in mind the fact that Ted Heath did not have a referendum when he took us into the European Community, nor did Margaret Thatcher on the Single European Act, nor did John Major on Maastricht. I repeat that if there were a change in the fundamental nature of our constitution, a referendum would be right, but there is not. My hon. Friend should realise that Opposition Members who call for a referendum want it as the first step in a two-step process to get us out of Europe—[Hon. Members: "No."] Yes, they do—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that every time the Prime Minister stands, some hon. Members want to shout. That will not be allowed and I will not tolerate it.

Tony Blair: I was merely pointing out gently that the Conservative party proposal—which we will not follow as a Government, which is why I comment on it—is a two-stage process, first to paralyse Europe and then to withdraw. That would be a disaster for our country.

David Ruffley: For each of the past six years under Labour, the tax burden has been higher than the one that it inherited. In the interests of the British taxpayer, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to rule out further increases in national insurance contributions in this Parliament?

Tony Blair: First, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Conservative Government as a whole, he will see that the tax burden was higher than at present in most of the years for which Mrs. Thatcher was in office, at least. Secondly, I make no apologies for raising national insurance. It was a difficult decision, but it was the right decision because it allows us to put extra investment into our national health service. If the Conservatives oppose that tax increase, perhaps they would say how they would fund the extra investment in the health service that is delivering better cancer care, better cardiac care and reduced waiting lists.

Judy Mallaber: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Denby Poultry Products factory in my constituency has been at the centre of a massive meat fraud conspiracy that released tonnes of condemned poultry waste to shops, hospitals and schools? Will he take urgent action on failings in the meat inspection system and the legislative framework identified by Amber Valley council officers and Derbyshire police, and will he congratulate them on their persistence in pursuing the case over several years and securing the convictions of six men involved in that appalling conspiracy?

Tony Blair: I agree. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the importing and exporting of illegal meat products. That is the reason why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Customs and Excise have been working hard on the issue. I assure her that we will continue to take every possible action to stamp the practice out.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Prime Minister has ruled out a referendum on the European constitution, despite the fact that it is absolutely fundamental—as he said today—will he give a complete undertaking that if the other place rejects the proposals, he will not apply the Parliament Act?

Tony Blair: We will maintain the position that we have set out because we believe it to be right. I repeat that the outcome of the constitution process is, of course, absolutely fundamental, but it is the right outcome for us. If we were to give any of our main positions away—on foreign policy, defence or tax—it would be a different matter. But we are not going to do that. We are going to secure every single one of those red lines. We have already principally done so in the outcome of the Convention and we will do it again at the intergovernmental conference. The hon. Gentleman and others should be honest about their position. They want to veto the European constitution, which would end up paralysing progress in Europe, as the first step to getting Britain out. That is a position that we as a Government will not adopt.

Tony Cunningham: I have several successful manufacturing companies in my constituency, including New Balance, which produces world-class athletics shoes, and M-Sport, which produces the very successful Ford rallying car that recently won world championship rallies in Finland and Greece. However, some manufacturing companies are struggling. What more can the Government do to help and support our manufacturing industry?

Tony Blair: It is true that the manufacturing sector in our country has been through difficult times, as has the manufacturing sector in the major countries round the world. Indeed, manufacturing output has fallen by 1.5 per cent. in the US, 2 per cent. in Germany and 3.5 per cent. in Italy, so obviously the situation is not confined to us. I have to say, however, that the most recent figures on manufacturing output show an upturn. The most important thing is to carry on with the investment in the measures that will improve skills and productivity, and science and technology, and with the research and development tax credits introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Above all else, we must maintain our economy's stability because, in the end, manufacturing—like any other part of our economy—depends on that stability in order to make progress.

Philip Hammond: Three years ago, the Government stated unequivocally that they would veto any attempt to incorporate the European charter of fundamental rights in EU law. Yesterday, the Government said that they would horse-trade on incorporation at the intergovernmental conference. Given that history, what confidence can the British people have that the remaining so-called "red-lined" areas—defence, foreign policy and taxation—will not be sold out in the same way, either at the IGC or later?

Tony Blair: We made it clear that we will not sell out the issue of the European charter on fundamental rights. There is no way that that should extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In my view, that position will be secured at the IGC that is coming up. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that, overall, this constitution is right. If we expand Europe from 15 members to 25, we must have a more effective and efficient way of working. If we simply sit there and say no to everything coming out of Europe—to extensions of qualified majority voting even when that is in our interests, to the first involvement of national Parliaments, or to a full-time President of the Council which will hugely strengthen the nation state—we will not advance this country's interests, but betray them.

Licensing and Registration of Gangmasters

Mark Simmonds: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to register and license gangmasters in the agricultural and food processing industries.
	To begin with, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor Sir Richard Body for his tremendous and unstinting work in this area.
	The term "gangmaster" is not new. Ganging has been conducted in the fens and East Anglia for as long as anyone can remember. Ganging refers to the provision of casual labour for agricultural work.
	The need for such casual labour used to be seasonal, but that is no longer the case. Increased consumer demand and changes in supermarket practices that demand consistency of supply 52 weeks a year for pre-packaged and pre-prepared goods now mean that demand for such casual labour is all-year round. Producers and packhouses now import produce when their own supply cannot meet supermarket demand. These imported goods are prepared, packaged and dispatched to supermarkets around the country 364 days a year.
	The gangmaster system is not any longer confined to the agriculture and horticulture industries. Ganging has now spread to any sector where there is demand for casual labour. It pays an important role in the fishing, catering, construction, cleaning and retail industries. These highly organised gangs of labour move around the UK fulfilling different labour requirements in different industries, often on a daily basis.
	I do not seek to make the gangmaster system illegal. It has to be recognised that gangmasters play a vital role in many industries, particularly in the agricultural sector. Ganging is an essential tool that provides efficient and cost-effective labour for the production of food in the UK. The role of gangmasters is even more important when considered in the context of the pressure placed on producers and packers by the supermarkets. Being a gangmaster is a legitimate business, providing large numbers of workers at short notice. A number of gangmasters pride themselves on their good working practices.
	Historically, gangmasters used to employ labour from the immediate locality to bring in the harvest, but packagers, producers and the industry are now hugely dependent on migrant labour. The point must be made, however, that without that migrant labour the food industry would not be able to operate. It has been said that 95 per cent. of the horticulture industry is now dependent on foreign labour. To give the House a sense of the scale of the problem, half the 72,000 casual workers employed in the industry are provided by gangmasters. It has been calculated that 20,000 workers per annum are employed by the gangmaster system in a 16-mile stretch between Spalding and Boston, and a further 20,000 workers are employed in the stretch between Spalding and Ely. However, the real scale of the problem is unknown. It is out of control to such an extent that gangmasters travel to Europe to recruit workers directly.
	I am sorry to have to tell the House that some suppliers of gang labour use abusive, evasive, intimidating, fraudulent and exploitative working practices. Regular and significant offences include unlawful deductions from wages; the use of casual workers in receipt of benefits; the use of illegal immigrants; evasion of tax and national insurance payments; non-registration of VAT; evasion of payment of VAT to Customs and Excise; and the use of under-age workers. The implications of those practices are not only the human misery and suffering of the exploited individuals, but significant loss to the Exchequer; damage to legitimate providers of labour owing to undercutting from illegal operators through unfair competition; and damage to the reputation of the entire food chain.
	To make life more difficult for the authorities, gangmasters often subcontract to smaller, untraceable labour suppliers, which means that no paper or audit trail is provided. Although the initial gangmaster may be legitimate, the subcontractor may not. It is thus important that all subcontracting gangmasters be included in any scheme, and they must also be licensed.
	The House should be under no illusion: this is a multimillion-pound business—so much so that the police believe that professional criminal gangs from around the world have moved into the casual labour market in the UK to exploit the current legislative loophole. Some illegal gangmasters have contacts with migrant importers, who charge people to come to the UK, promising them employment. Once an individual is in the UK, often in massive debt, they are found accommodation, which is often substandard. They are provided with transport to and from their place of work. The transport and accommodation costs are deducted from the worker's pay packet, along with tax and national insurance payments. However, as many of the workers are in this country illegally, there is no justification for many of those deductions, which are inevitably not passed on to the relevant authorities. The worst of the examples brought to my attention is that of an eastern European woman employed by an illegal gangmaster. Her gross wage was £149, but after deductions for accommodation, food and transport her net pay was £19.
	If a worker complains or queries deductions from their wages, they can find themselves on the streets, homeless, penniless and passportless. More often than not, however, the van that takes them to work will not turn up, and as many of them are housed in rural areas where transport is limited, if the van fails to arrive there is no work.
	There is an atmosphere of intimidation permeating illegal ganging. Stories of verbal and physical abuse are widespread and subsequently generate an understandable reluctance to come forward, so much of the evidence is anecdotal. Indeed, the last reliable statistical data are from 1995; they emanated from the agricultural compliance unit, which identified more than 5,500 gangmasters and, by investigating them at that time, managed to recover £537 million in unpaid tax.
	The Government have recognised that the situation is deteriorating and that the prevalence of illegal gangmasters is increasing. In 1998, Operation Gangmaster was established to look into the problems of illegal ganging. However, it is clear from evidence to the recent inquiry into gangmasters conducted by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that the Government have so far failed in their efforts to tackle the problem. They admit that no one has any idea of the extent of the difficulties.
	Five years on, Operation Gangmaster has no overall budget, reports to no Minister, has no identified aims or goals and no time frame by which anything must be achieved, and the relevant individuals in each Department with responsibility for Operation Gangmaster have not met during the past year. It is no wonder that little is being done, that nothing is being achieved and that the problem is getting worse.
	The Government have no idea of the number of migrant workers—illegal and legal—involved in the problem, how long they have been in the UK, where they are located, where they are working, what they are doing, or whether they are being exploited or intimidated. It is essential to confront those issues for the sake of local economies and the workers themselves.
	The fundamental step in combating the problem is to establish a legislative framework to introduce a compulsory code of practice. All gangmasters and subcontractors must abide by that code to obtain a licence and to be allowed to organise casual gang labour. Registration must be kept simple and unbureaucratic, unlike the existing voluntary codes, which are clearly not working. If gangmasters fail to comply with the legal obligations, they must be removed from the register and not be allowed to operate as gangmasters. An annual levy would be charged to make the scheme self-financing.
	Any scheme must take into account the importance of the need to maintain flexibility in the labour market and must not add further to the burden on the agriculture and horticulture industries. Such schemes have existed before—for example, under the Agricultural Gangs Act 1867. In the 1940s, there was a licensing scheme administered by magistrates. In 1973, a scheme worked reasonably successfully, alongside the White Paper on employment.
	Such a self-financing legislative scheme is supported by supermarkets, producers, farmers, packers, the National Farmers Union, the Fresh Produce Consortium, the trade union movement, legitimate gangmasters and many hon. Members.
	In conclusion, it is not acceptable to have many thousands of vulnerable legal and illegal workers being transported across the country and being exploited. It must stop. It is essential that we must encourage the legitimate supply of labour to the detriment of the illegal and illegitimate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Simmonds, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. Mark Field, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Peter Duncan and Mr. Hugo Swire.

Licensing and Registration of Gangmasters

Mr. Simmonds accordingly presented a Bill to register and license gangmasters in the agricultural and food processing industries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 156].

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will of course be aware that the House is voting in deferred Divisions at the moment, as indicated on today's Order Paper. Will you perhaps cause that to be looked into, as the House is voting on matters that were debated in early July and thus being asked to reach a decision some two months after they were debated in Committee? That is surely ridiculous, and yet another sign of modernisation going fairly crazy. Should it not be reviewed?

Mr. Speaker: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that Members of Parliament have a long memory.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you could provide me with some guidance on the procedures of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House. Is it the case that, once the Committee submits a report to the Prime Minister, he decides when that report is published?

Mr. Speaker: All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that, thankfully, that is not an issue for me; it is not a Committee of the House, so he will have to make his inquiries elsewhere. Opposition Day

[16th Allotted Day]

Fairness and Security in Old Age

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that this Government has failed to deliver fairness and security for older people; is concerned that home care services for older people have been cut back and that the Government has presided over the collapse of the care home sector through botched regulations and underfunding; condemns the Government for putting in place rules that allowed thousands of elderly people to be forced to give up their life savings and homes to fund their continuing healthcare; believes that the Government has failed to tackle the pensions crisis both for current and future pensioners, putting in place a complex system of means-tests that fails to get help to the poorest pensioners, whilst heaping extra costs on pensioners by relying on the unfair Conservative council tax to fund local services; is concerned that many pensioners will suffer as a result of the closure of local post offices, a problem made worse by the Government's plans to scrap the pension book and introduce direct payment; and calls on the Government to stabilise the care home and home care sectors, offer security and real choice to older people, simplify the pension system, boost the basic state pension and abolish the council tax and replace it with a tax related to ability to pay.
	Liberal Democrats have called this debate because we believe that the Government have failed to deliver fairness and security for older people in this country. It is convenient that we are debating this subject today, because many hundreds of our constituents from the National Pensioners Convention and many other pensioner organisations up and down the country are coming to this House to lobby Members of Parliament about their concerns. Their message and ours is that older people feel cheated by this Government—cheated out of their life savings to pay for their care, cheated out of a decent pension and cheated out of a reasonable standard of living by an unfair and ever-rising council tax.
	A growing concern exists among older people that there is a crisis in our care system. Day after day, more and more care homes are closing their doors, but where are the extra home care services to make up the difference? As care homes close their doors, where are the provision in people's own homes and the staff to enable people to continue to live in their own homes?
	Since the peak in 1996, some 74,000 care home places have been lost in this country. In the 15 months to April this year, a further 13,400 places have been lost. The prospects remain bleak. The number of new registrations of care homes is falling even faster than the number of closures is rising.

Paul Tyler: To underline my hon. Friend's point, is he aware that in Cornwall so many care homes have been closed that people have had to be transferred into our hospitals, taking up beds that are then blocked for those who should be there?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point, to which I want to refer in a moment.
	As a consequence of that lack of care home capacity in our communities—and the lack of foresight on the part of this Government that has allowed a shortage of supply to arise in more and more places—growing numbers of people are getting stuck in hospitals when they are ready to go to a care home.
	In the 15 months to April this year just 96 new homes were registered for care of the elderly in this country. I repeat: 96 in 15 months. Since 1997, the number of people receiving home care has fallen by 110,000: almost a quarter of home care places have been axed in this country since 1997. Social services departments have always been gatekeepers of services, but increasingly the elderly are finding the gateway to those services firmly locked, and opened to them only when they are at death's door or in desperate straits. More and more councils are rationing services. Who picks up the pieces? It is the relatives, the husbands, the wives, the parents, the children—all of them carers. They find themselves asked to carry on that caring role for longer and longer because adequate provision of social care services is not available to support them in that role, and indeed when they can no longer carry on in that role.
	At the same time, the Government have driven through half-baked plans to put a price on the head of every elderly person who is stuck in a hospital bed. Of course we want older people to receive the right care in the right place at the right time, but this Government's obsession with targets and fines runs a risk of more and more elderly people getting the wrong care in the wrong place at the wrong time. As the number of people labelled as bed blockers falls—and it is falling—the number of people returning to hospital as emergencies is rising. The Department of Health's own figures show that there has been a 23 per cent. increase in the numbers of elderly people over the age of 75 returning to hospital within less than 28 days of being sent home. That is a startling figure. Indeed, the last available set of figures for the whole of a single year show that 140,000 people over the age of 75 are now being put through the misery of being discharged prematurely only to return to hospital within 28 days of that discharge. That makes no sense at all. The research that has been done on emergency readmissions shows that two in five could have been avoided. The NHS must do more on that, and the Government, by their fixation on delayed discharge, are overlooking that problem and failing to tackle it.

John Horam: Both the hon. Gentleman and I are parliamentary representatives on the Greater London Forum for the Elderly, as he will be aware. As he also knows, the forum is having a community awareness week in October, in which it hopes to bring out clearly the problem of care homes in London, which is particularly acute. I would be glad if he made note of that.

Paul Burstow: I certainly do make note of it, and in a minute I shall quote some examples from a report of the National Audit Office that demonstrate clearly that in London and the south-east we have gone beyond meltdown in the care home system. There is an excess of demand over supply when it comes to care home capacity. The NAO report states that
	"for London and the south-east as a whole demand exceeds supply. There is a particular shortage of beds affordable to councils."
	Increasingly, because the capital is funded to a higher level than elsewhere for social services, it can afford to poach places outside London. Increasingly in Kent and other parts of the home counties, London councils are competing with local councils for care home beds, and they are able to outbid local councils, making life even more difficult for many others outside London.
	The problem of demand outstripping supply is not confined to the capital and the south-east. It is becoming a widespread issue. It is not only a matter of a growing shortage of places, for there is also a shortage of staff. Again, the NAO warned the Government earlier this year, when it said:
	"Both residential and home care capacity are constrained by shortage of care assistants in the public and private sectors, who carry out many of the more basic but vital tasks. Potential applicants in some parts of the country are currently able to earn higher wages by working, for example, in supermarkets."
	The reality is that in too many places care home owners fear the day that a new supermarket opens because they know that it will have an impact upon their ability to continue to provide a quality of care for the residents in their home.
	A shortage of places and staff means less choice for older people. It leaves families struggling to find a good care home on their doorstep. For many, the choice is simple: sending granny or granddad miles away or topping up what the council is willing to pay to get into what they hope will be a better home. Not only do the Government expect the elderly to spend their life savings and to sell their homes to pay for care. It seems that they are now content to stand idly by while the children of older people also pay for their parents to be in the right care home. No wonder these people feel that the system is unfair. No wonder so many of them feel insecure.

Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that £4.5 billion of private money is spent on residential care, which is equivalent to 1.4p on income tax. Is his party saying that it would pay that private money? If the hon. Gentleman and his party are not going to fund it, he should shut up and move on to something else.

Paul Burstow: So the hon. Gentleman is telling me that a debate about the future of older people and their security should not include care homes and should not pinpoint the key reasons why care homes are going out of business. Is that what he is telling us? Many people outside the Chamber would be appalled to hear that that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Geraint Davies: rose—

Paul Burstow: No, I will not give way.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a point about money. I shall deal with funding shortly.

Richard Younger-Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency two care homes have closed recently? A constituent told me last week that having moved her grandmother to the Gatehouse care home in Dawlish, only for it to be closed six months ago, she then moved her to the Kiniver care home in Teignmouth last week, only to discover that it is closing. Is it not the cost of the Government policy that elderly people are moved from care home to care home at a time in their life when they are least able to cope?

Paul Burstow: Sadly, what my hon. Friend has described is all too often now the reality for people in care homes. People can be given notice of no more than four weeks that their care home is about to be closed. The trauma of being evicted from a care home can shorten lives and result in people losing their lives. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that concern. There is a fundamental lack of security of tenure, which means that people can easily be passed from pillar to post in the way that he rightly describes.
	I have said that the Government are presiding over a back-door tax on the frail and elderly and their families. As the gap between care home fees and what councils are willing to pay widens, more and more families are forced to choose between eviction or topping up the care home fees. It is no wonder that so many older people feel betrayed by the Government.
	As more care homes close and demand outstrips supply, the problem can only grow. The plain and simple fact is that the market for care homes is still in freefall. Fee levels are at the heart of the matter. Councils cannot or will not pay a fair rate for care. Yet fees must rise if care homes closures are to be halted. That is not only my view, and it is not only the view of a number of organisations from Age Concern and Help the Aged to the King's Fund, as well as many others. It is also the finding of the Government's research last year. The research states:
	"An increase in care home fees paid by local authorities was the change that might have prevented home closures identified most often by providers."
	That was one of the findings of research commissioned by the Government from the Personal Social Services Research Unit. It seems that that finding has not yet landed on Ministers' desks. It certainly has not impacted upon their consciousness to the extent that they have acted to make a real difference.
	Have fees risen enough to make a difference? Earlier this year I received a letter from the National Care Homes Association, which said:
	"This year . . . Local Authorities have awarded a fee increase of between two and five per cent. These fee increases came into effect in April. At the same time care homes have had to face additional 'on costs' imposed by the Government."
	The association goes on to list the 6 per cent. increase in the national minimum wage, the 20 per cent. increase in the fees that care homes must pay to be inspected by the National Care Standards Commission and the 130 per cent. increase in charges for criminal record checks for new employees. None of these increases is wrong in itself, and none of the services is wrong in itself. But for all of them to have been overlooked by the Government in their funding settlements, which means that councils cannot passport the money through to cover the extra costs, means that care homes are increasingly working with a bottom line that does not make any sense to the owners or their bank managers.
	This means increasingly—certainly in my constituency—that those running care homes look at property values and judge that they have been in the business long enough and that it is time for them to retire. They close their care homes and realise a profit by selling them for something else. The victims are the people who, as a result, get passed from pillar to post, having been told that they must move from one home to another.
	I want to make it clear that, for us, the issue is not about the livelihoods of care home owners; it is all about the lives of care home residents. A care home can close in just four weeks. A resident has no security of tenure. As I have said, it is a traumatic experience to be told that a home that you have lived in, possibly for many years, is suddenly to be denied to you. That experience can be terrible. It can shorten lives, and in some cases it has cost lives.
	Most of those deaths—those tragedies—go unnoticed and unreported. However, earlier this year two cases widely highlighted the plight of the frail elderly. These were the tragic deaths of Winnifred Humphrey and Violet Townsend in different parts of the country, Kent and Gloucestershire. Winnifred Humphrey was forced to move home because her council was not willing to pay the home's latest care home fees. She died 16 days after her move. Violet Townsend was forced to move when the home she had lived in for eight years stopped subsidising council-funded places.
	The question of charitably run care homes subsidising state-funded placements is a big issue. Two years ago, the charitable sector was having to find more than £184 million a year to plug the gap between what councils were paying and what was necessary to provide a decent quality of care for older people in care homes. As a consequence of being forced to move, Violet Townsend died five days afterwards. I hope that the Minister responsible for these matters at Westminster has had the opportunity to study the report commissioned by Gloucestershire. It was a local inquiry into the events surrounding Violet's tragic death. I shall quote the report's conclusions. It said:
	"The funding required to support the provision of residential and nursing care beds has not kept pace with the growth in the market resulting from improved healthcare and subsequent changes in demography including longer life expectancy. National research and local experience shows that funding initiatives tied to current government priorities do little to address the underlying weakness in the funding structure. When seeking to supplement a shortfall in resources for residential and nursing care, the Council is obliged to balance the risk to its other social care responsibilities, notably in services to children.
	Market forces including recruitment and retention problems, increased care standards and rising expectations are resulting in a shrinking care home industry. The Council, working in partnership with the care home industry, is seeking to secure future provision by developing a mutually acceptable contract strategy. In the longer term the Council may be priced out of the market unless additional funds are available to pay the level of fees required to attract private capital investment in new build provision that is compliant with the improved care standards."
	What will the Government's response be to that report and to many others like it?

Anne Begg: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and accept what he is saying about the tragedy of those two cases. However, care homes close for various reasons—not just because of lack of funds, but often because they do not come up to the new care standards. I would expect the hon. Gentleman from his political perspective to accept that that is quite right. However, what is the solution to the difficulties caused by the closure of care homes that simply do not come up to the standards that we expect in a modern care service?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady makes an entirely fair point. At the moment, care home residents have less security of tenure than a council tenant or a private tenant. We are arguing that they need greater security, and we need a procedure for care home closures—there will be closures, because there are bad care homes that should be closed—that is slow-paced and meets the needs of the individuals. It should not be rushed to meet the needs of the social services budget or care home owners' priorities in selling their care homes. That is what we want, as it is not standard practice everywhere. The findings of the inquiry in Gloucestershire show that there are lessons to be learned from the way in which the tragic circumstances of Violet's death were handled, and changes in procedure will be required in future.
	The Government's response to the problem is apparent in their amendment—it is simply to pat themselves on the back and to say what a wonderful job they are doing and that everything in the garden is rosy. Good regulations and higher care standards are something that we all want, but the Government, in fact, have managed to pull off a double whammy of botched regulations and, as a consequence of their botched introduction, poor standards. The care standards that were introduced in April 2002, only to be ditched in July 2002, were for many care home owners the final straw. During the passage of the legislation in 2000, the Government said that better standards would be cost-neutral. Larger rooms, wider doors, lifts and many other physical changes are required to bring homes up to standard so that that they are fit not only for today but for future generations. The Minister has stuck to the line that that need not cost more, which was nonsense in 2000 when the legislation went through the House. When the penny finally dropped with Health Ministers, they ran away from higher standards and the higher costs of meeting them, and waved away the physical standard requirements for the care home sector. The standards for care homes for disabled children and adults are in practice and detail higher than the standards that will apply to the care of the elderly. What happens to an adult in a care home who makes the transition to an older persons' home? Suddenly, they are told that they have to start sharing again because standards do not require the provision of single rooms in a care home for the elderly. Such changes are the result of the Government's ill-thought-out approach. Yet again, elderly people face discrimination solely on the basis of age.
	Discrimination does not end there. In February this year, the health service ombudsman published a highly critical report on long-term care. She found that the NHS had adopted unfair, even unlawful, rules for deciding who was entitled to fully funded continuing health care. Despite court judgments and the ombudsman's rulings, the Government have done next to nothing to put that injustice right. They remain in denial about the fact that they have done anything wrong at all. However, the guidance issued by the Department of Health under this Government's watch has served only to obscure the legal position and left the NHS locally to draw up its own rules. Those rules amount to age-based rationing of health care. Once assessed—and thousands never even get that far—people who are turned down are directed to social services and are means-tested. It is a scandal that for so long the sick elderly in need of health care have been forced to sell their homes to pay for services that they thought throughout their working and taxpaying lives they would receive free when they needed them.
	We are not talking about personal care or the recommendations of the royal commission on long-term care. We are talking about the law of the land, dating back to the institution of the national health service and the principle that health care is free on the basis of need. For far too many elderly people, that is not the practical everyday reality—they are denied that right and are charged for going into a care home. In too many cases, the rules mean that people only qualify for NHS funding when they are at death's door, yet no law was ever passed to draw the line between what is free and what is paid for. It has been done instead by poorly drafted guidance and neglect. Ever since the ombudsman reported in February, Ministers have stonewalled on the Government's response. I hope that when the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box today, he will offer a sincere apology to the families who have had to battle for so long to get their rights recognised and who had only the ombudsman to rely on to get change and recompense for what they have lost.
	The problem is not just unfairness and insecurity in care—the same goes for pensions. The withering away of the basic state pension started under the previous Government, but it has continued under this one. Today's basic pension is a weak foundation on which to build security in old age. Women do particularly badly, and their relative position in the past decade has not improved. The basic pension should be a strong foundation for income in old age. The oldest pensioners, as we know—indeed, even the Chancellor now accepts this—are the poorest pensioners. We believe that they should receive much more as part of their basic state pension.
	I shall now come on to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). If the money that the Government are ploughing into mass means tests for the pension credit were spent on a better basic pension, the figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) reported to the House a while ago would be of great interest. The over-75s would receive an extra £19 week in their basic pension—no questions asked, no forms to fill out. Even the Government accept that the basic state pension is not enough, which is why they are introducing the state second pension. I had the doubtful pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the legislation introducing that pension. The trouble with that measure is that, after 40 years of making contributions, someone retiring on a full basic pension and a full second pension will be so poor that they will immediately have to apply for means-tested support.
	The basic pension and the state second pension both leave pensioners in poverty, so the Government are introducing the pension credit to fill the gap. However, they have introduced more complication and confusion in the system. Complication and means testing lead to lower take-up. The Government think that 3.8 million pensioner households should be entitled to the pensioner credit, but the reality is that by next year Ministers expect just 2.8 million of them to be receiving it—1 million pensioners will, on the Government's own figures, be living below the Government's pensioner poverty line.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is at odds with my own experience. Thousands of pensioners in my community are accessing the Pension Service, and I have repeatedly been told that it is as easy as picking up a phone—the work is done for claimants, and they get returns within days. If that is not the hon. Gentleman's experience in his area, may I suggest that he ask some questions, as that service is available in many other parts of the country?

Paul Burstow: The Minister may be able to deal with that puzzle in a minute, because the Government's own figures are based on the assumption that they will fail to get 1 million pensioners into the pension credit. It is for the Government to explain why there is such a difference between what the hon. Lady has been led to believe is happening on the ground and the Government's expectations. Our experience of the system leads us to believe that it will require regular reviews, which means that in reality it will be complicated.

Nigel Waterson: May I bolster the point that the hon. Gentleman is making by pointing out that as recently as this morning the Secretary of State himself gave evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions? He accepted my figure when I suggested that 1 million pensioners entitled to the pension credit would not be claiming it, and he expressed a blithe confidence that, despite all the problems with tax credits and the Child Support Agency computer problems, things would be done seamlessly and efficiently when the day dawned in October.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point in demonstrating the Minister's acceptance of the figure that I have given. I hope that when Ministers respond to our debate they will do more to allay the concern of many Members about the way in which the pension credit system will operate.

Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, by next year, 2.8 million pensioner households will be better off as a result of the introduction of the state pension credit—a measure introduced by the Government which his party opposed? Is that what he is saying?

Paul Burstow: What I am saying is that I am more ambitious than this Government. I do not believe that 1 million households should be left in poverty, but the Government seem to be complacent about that and prepared to accept it. They are complacent about the situation even in 2006, as they expect 800,000 of our pensioner households to continue to live in pensioner poverty.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Burstow: I have been generous in giving way and I have given way to the hon. Lady, so I wish to make some progress.
	That poverty is made worse by huge council tax increases. The most recent Government figures show that the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners pay almost four times as much of their income, even after benefits, on council tax as the top 20 per cent. Council tax has a disproportionate impact on the poorest.

Brian Cotter: I support what my hon. Friend is saying about council tax. In May, I presented a petition on behalf of 5,000 residents in Weston-super-Mare who were concerned about the existing rates. We are now talking about next year, when there will be a further whammy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people are very concerned about fairness and ability to pay?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is right to underscore something that many outside the House feel—council tax has now become the unfairest tax in Britain. It really does hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable. That is why during the Budget process in this place, we argued that there should be a £100 across-the-board cut in this year's council tax as a way of beginning to alleviate and ameliorate the impact of council tax rises. It is also why the Liberal Democrats still believe that what we need is a fair income tax-based solution to raising local taxes. The Government say in their amendment simply that they are reviewing council tax. Six years after coming into office, they are still reviewing. While they do so, pensioners are getting poorer.
	Our motion also addresses the concern felt by many pensioners about the loss of their pension books and the introduction of what the Government confusingly call direct payments. We now have direct payments in the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. They are totally different and confusing on the ground. Payments into banks, building societies and post office card accounts may make sense for some people, but the option of keeping the pension book should not be discarded so casually. The Government are introducing the post office card account, but it is difficult to apply for. People have to go through six separate stages to make an application, and the account is difficult to use in practice. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) found back in July that only one in 10 post office card account applications had been processed. Let us hope that the Government have been able to speed that up.
	Even now, it is not clear what happens to pensioners who have an account who fall ill suddenly and have not made any prior arrangements allowing someone else to use their personal identification number. Indeed, if someone else uses their PIN, they will lose their eligibility for a card account.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Burstow: I am afraid that I shall not give way at this point.
	The same point applies to those who are relying on a number of different carers. We are still waiting for the Government to spell out the details of their exception scheme. If pensioners feel that the pension book suits their needs, they should be allowed to keep it.
	We initiated this debate because those are the issues and concerns that are on our constituents' minds. They are on the minds of those who are lobbying Members of this House today. On the ground, people are seeing care homes closing, and confronting the difficulties of finding a good care home for their loved ones. People are forking out a fortune to pay for what they believed was free health care and struggling to make ends meet while coping with a meagre pension and huge council tax rises. This Government have had six years to start to deal with those issues. As a result of their failure, thousands—indeed, millions—of pensioners in this country still feel insecure and feel that this Government are not giving them a fair deal.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes that from 2004–05 Government will be spending £9.2 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; notes this is £5.7 billion more than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings; recognises that the poorest third of pensioners will be £1,600 a year better off in real terms compared with the 1997 system; applauds Government action for older people on health and social care, fuel poverty, transport and lifelong learning; approves of action to stabilise the care home sector by increasing resources available to councils to increase care home fees where required; supports the Government's commitment to increase resources available for social services by on average six per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years, the expansion of intensive home care support, and the largest ever sustained increase in funding for the NHS; welcomes the real terms increase of 25 per cent. in grant to local authorities since 1997, and the review of the balance of funding between central and local government; further welcomes the successful introduction of universal banking services, giving Post Office access through a number of current accounts, basic bank accounts and the Post Office card account; congratulates Government on its intention to bring in Pension Credit from October; notes eligible households stand to gain on average £400 a year; and applauds the actions of the Government which result in over 1 million people being ready to receive Pension Credit who will gain more money than they had before."
	We very much welcome this debate on fairness and security in old age. Clearly, the ageing of the population is one of the major challenges for societies such as ours. Indeed, it is the major factor behind what I might term the rise of demographic politics, although low birth rates across Europe and much of the western world are another major factor behind demographic politics. We face serious challenges and there are some serious questions to be asked and answered.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised many such questions, and many of them have huge resource implications. In debating these matters, however, we must avoid two dangers. The first is an excessive negativism and pessimism about the ageing of our population. Let me turn to the words of a former tutor of mine, Professor Richard Titmuss of the London School of Economics:
	"Viewed historically, it is difficult to understand why the gradual emergence in Britain of a more balanced age structure should be regarded as a 'problem of ageing'".
	I think that that is a text for our times, although the book was published in 1963. Let us avoid pessimism about ageing. The second danger is any temptation to suggest that there is some conflict between different generations or that they are in a battle for resources. Incidentally, I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of falling into either of those traps, but trying to make two broad points.
	In looking at the demography of ageing, we need to address two trends. First, there are many ways in which we can paint a statistical picture of the general ageing of our population. Back in 1901, a few years before Lloyd George introduced the old-age pension at the generous rate of five shillings, the 65-plus population represented some 5 per cent. of the overall population. Those aged 65 and over now represent approximately 16 per cent. By the middle of this century, 2051, that level will rise to 24 per cent. However, there is another trend that we need to understand—the ageing of the elderly population itself and the rise in the number of people in their 70s and 80s. Back in 1901, only 61,000 people were over 85, but the figure is now 1.1 million and it will be 3 million by 2051. The ageing of the population has major implications for pensions issues and the ageing of the elderly population has particular implications for the social and health care issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	To give another bit of broad context, we also need to recognise the life cycle of the typical 21st century Briton. The Briton of the 21st century may well spend 20 or even 25 years in education and training, preparing for economic activity. That hugely contrasts with the situation of their grandparents and great grandparents, who would have left school at 14. Of course, although when people retire—we all hope that they will be able to retire later if they wish to do so—they may currently face retirements lasting 20 years, as the century progresses, they may last 25, 30 or more years.
	I mention those facts because, in terms of such demography, we need to ask serious questions, as we are doing, about how we will afford education for a long period at the start of people's lives and decent retirements at the end. Although we often have separate debates about those issues, they are linked in terms of resources and life cycles.
	We should also avoid generalisations about "the old". We all fall into that trap, and I shall probably do so today. However, when we consider groups of elderly people—some now talk about ageing starting at 50, which I can hardly believe—we are clearly talking, in the light of the fact that some people are now surviving as centenarians, about different cohorts of people with different needs, and about different financial and social circumstances. Such cohorts have different interests and may not agree with each other about the allocation of resources, and we should recognise that.
	While much of our debate is perfectly properly about the rights of elderly people to decent health and social care, and decent retirement pensions, let us also remember and pay tribute to the fact that this generation takes very seriously not only its rights, but its duties and responsibilities. It takes its responsibilities seriously in terms of volunteering. Many of our volunteer army are the younger old, who are often looking after the older old. Many are carers of spouses with dementia or children with serious conditions. We need to recognise the responsibilities taken on by the old, as well as their rights, and obviously we need to combat age discrimination.

David Taylor: The Liberal Democrat spokesman highlighted one or two cases in which older people had had their human rights breached, which often takes place in a care setting. Does the Minister agree that sometimes older people find it difficult to defend and promote their rights? Is it not about time that they had a human rights commissioner who could work on such breaches, as I suggested to his ministerial colleague a week or two ago?

Malcolm Wicks: In terms of the broad agenda, I shall focus mainly on incomes and pensions, while the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), will address other issues. We are all sensitive to the fact that when people who may be in their final years of life need to move to various kinds of institutions to be cared for, often by strangers, potential breaches of human rights come very much to the fore. I am sure that that unites all hon. Members, whatever our policy positions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very mindful of the issue.

John Bercow: Given that higher take-up of pensioners' benefits demands greater simplicity in the system, does it in any way trouble the Minister that, as was said of the Schleswig-Holstein question, only three people have ever understood the complexities of Government pension policy, one of whom is dead, while the second is mad and the third has forgotten the answer?

Malcolm Wicks: I think that I personally knew all three. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall talk about pension credit, which he may have in mind, in a few moments.
	One of the issues involved in rights is that of outlawing age discrimination. It is extraordinary that at the very time that, demographically speaking, more of our citizens are elders, there remains absurd discrimination against older workers that bars people from the work force. We have several programmes to deal with that, and we are going to outlaw age discrimination. That will come into force in October 2006.

Paul Burstow: Will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm on the record that when he says that the Government are committed to dealing with age discrimination, he means that they are focused only on the workplace and will not tackle—in other words, they will tolerate—discrimination against older people in welfare and health services and in many other aspects of their lives?

Malcolm Wicks: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not pay tribute to the fact that we are the first Government to outlaw age discrimination. In a range of arenas in the private, voluntary and public sectors, we need to be on guard against such discrimination—not least in the national health service, where we have taken major steps in that respect.
	Our strategy for older people involves a number of strands, but I would emphasise the need for all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement, opportunities to remain active in later life—there is a role for employment, of course, but also for education, lifelong learning and community activity—and a better and more co-ordinated health and care system to promote the independence of old people. It is also important at central level—even more so at local level—that we involve older people themselves in running and consulting on such services.
	I turn to incomes and pensions. That is my brief, and it is extremely significant to the debate. We are tackling pensioner poverty and will continue to do so. Our approach strikes a balance between providing a solid foundation of support for all, looking after the needs of all older people through pensions while targeting support at those who need it most. We make no apology for targeting the poorest pensioners. Income support through the minimum income guarantee introduced improvements, which have increased in line with earnings since 1999. Current rates are £102.10 for single pensioners and £155.80 for couples. The winter fuel payment benefits all older people, providing an additional £200 a year for around 11 million pensioners. From this winter, there will be an extra £100 for households containing someone aged 80 or over, benefiting an estimated 1.9 million people. In addition, free TV licences are available for all those aged 75 or over, without any income test.
	In 2003–04, the Government will spend around £8 billion extra a year on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. Although much of that benefits all pensioners, as I have been at pains to emphasise, it includes £3.75 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners. It is a matter for debate in this House as to whether Opposition parties agree with our determination to target extra resources on the poorest, but we think that that is right in terms of social justice. That figure amounts to almost six times more than would have been provided by an earnings link to the basic state pension since 1998. Those who argue simply for the re-indexing of the pension with earnings must recognise that that would deny extra help to the poorest. As a result of our measures, the poorest third of our elders will be approximately £1,600 a year better off.
	Rightly, it has been noted that many of the poorest among our elderly population are women. There are two reasons for that—women's increasing life expectancy and, more importantly, the fact that their work patterns mean that they are less likely than men to have occupational pensions and their savings may have diminished. About two thirds of pension credit beneficiaries will be women. We need to highlight that in our campaigns on take-up.

Steve Webb: rose—

Annabelle Ewing: rose—

Malcolm Wicks: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman first, because I am not a sexist, then to the hon. Lady.

Steve Webb: Can the Minister confirm that his statistics on the average gain for poorer pensioners are based on his Department's simulation models, which assume, incorrectly, that every pensioner takes up all his or her entitlement?

Malcolm Wicks: I will deal with the methodology of the statistics in a note to the hon. Gentleman, if that is satisfactory.

Annabelle Ewing: On the crucial issue of take-up, I want to ask the Minister a question that I asked in a previous debate, when I am afraid that I did not get an answer. Will a specific take-up target for pension credit be set for Scotland, and if not, why not?

Malcolm Wicks: We have estimated figures on the numbers of people who are entitled to pension credit in Scotland, as well as in the regions of England and Wales. I am coming to the issue of take-up. I hope that even those who oppose the introduction of pension credit will help us in the campaign, and that all people who are entitled to the benefit will claim it.
	Pension credit will be introduced from October this year. For the first time in the history of the welfare state, the Government will ensure that it pays to have saved above the foundation of the basic state pension. Pension credit will reward people aged 65 and over for some of the savings and incomes that they have built up for their retirement. In the past, those who managed to save a little were left no better off than those who had not saved at all. People with capital of £12,000 or more could get no help at all, however low their income. That is the historical situation; no doubt the Conservative spokesman will seek to defend it.
	Pension credit is less complex, less intrusive and less bureaucratic, and will give people more. Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible and stand to gain, on average, some £400 a year. The application process has been designed to be straightforward. It involves a simple telephone call on a free phone number. People are sent a form to check, sign and return to the Pension Service. I say to old people who, despite our best efforts to design a simple form, understandably find form-filling difficult, as many of us do, "Throw it in the bin and make the telephone call. In a 20-minute call, one of our trained staff will fill in the form for you. You simply have to verify it."
	From the age of 65, most pensioners will have their entitlement fixed for five years, during which they need to report only major life events. We are thus doing away with the weekly means test. We need to communicate to elderly people that the pension credit does not mean an old-style means test. Since April, we have issued mail shots to approximately 1.3 million pensioner households and we shall write to remaining households in the next nine months. I hope that hon. Members understand that that is a colossal exercise and it would be wrong to try to write to all pensioners in the same week or even the same month; we do not want to gum up the administrative works. We are therefore undertaking the work gradually and sensibly for public administration.
	People who apply at any time up to October next year will have their credit backdated to this year so that no one will lose out. Of those who have already been through the process—mainly people on the existing minimum income guarantee who have been transferred to pension credit, but also others—we estimate that, even at this early stage, more than 1 million will get more money than they received previously.

Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister agree with the comments of Mr. Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged that the Department has designed a system so byzantine that no one can understand it?

Malcolm Wicks: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand that the fact that people do not have to fill in the form and that one of our experts can fill it in during a 20-minute phone call—people have only to verify the details—is a major step from old-style means-testing.
	I welcome the Liberal Democrats' choice of pension credit for the debate because they have an interesting track record that should be understood. They opposed its introduction. When the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was not examining statistical methodologies, he stated on 25 March 2002:
	"The savings credit neither rewards those who save today nor encourages people to save for tomorrow, and I urge the House to reject it outright."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 629.]

Steve Webb: Very perceptive.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman clearly stands by his comments, since he judges them to be perceptive. I am glad that someone does.
	If we follow the hon. Gentleman's advice and spend all our pension credit money on increasing the basic state pension, we could increase the maximum rate from £77.45 to approximately £90. However, that would mean losses of around £30 a week for households that receive pension credit. The Liberal Democrats need to explain that to older and poorer people: if the Government foolishly followed their advice, the poorest would be denied £30 or more a week.
	Although I do not agree with the Liberal Democrats' approach, I at least respect it and understand their position. However, it is curious to compare their opposition to pension credit with their comments in the Brent, East by-election campaign. I have a piece of paper which is so interesting that I shall subscribe to future editions. It is called "Focus on Pensions" and discusses pension credit. Since we are considering "honourable gentlemen" in the House and outside, I assumed that the headline might read "Scrap Pension Credit" or possibly "Take Away £30 from the Poorest Pensioners". However, it is: "Are You Missing Out?" The article states that "local Lib Dem"—they call themselves Lib Dems—campaigner Sarah Teather
	"has launched a major campaign to urge all local pensioners to apply for the new Pension Credit".
	She said:
	"I want to make sure that all pensioners in our area who are entitled to the new Pension Credit actually claim it."
	Once again, we understand that being a Liberal Democrat means never having to be consistent. What hypocrisy! I hope that the hon. Member for Northavon or his colleagues will say whether they are for or against the pension credit, and whether they would back or scrap it. Answer came there none. Liberal Democrat Members opposed the pension credit in Parliament, campaigned for its success at the hustings and soon they will doubtless claim that they thought of it.

Nigel Waterson: The Minister has been generous in giving way. I promise not to try to intervene on his speech again, unless provoked.
	The virus is spreading, because in my constituency the Liberals are writing to pensioners extolling the virtues of the pension credit and demanding to know whether they will take it up. I am pleased that there is no by-election in my constituency, but I gather that in Brent, East the "local Lib Dem campaigner"—how that phrase rolls off the printing presses—lives in Islington.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman is looking very well, doubtless with the benefit of a summer holiday, and I am sure that a by-election will be much delayed.
	A major part of the discussion must focus on not only today's but tomorrow's pensioners. The Green Paper and our response to it are crucial to the pensions agenda.

David Borrow: Unlike the Liberal Democrats, I strongly support the pension credit. I am pleased that such a policy has emerged from the demand in constituencies such as mine that were let down because small occupational pensions or savings were not properly taken into account. My supporters will deliver 35,000 leaflets to urge my constituents to apply for the pension credit.
	However, having stressed the good points, I wish to raise a technical matter. When I was first elected to Parliament and means-tested benefits were examined, I was upset by the assumption that every £250 in savings resulted in an income of £1 a week. That has been changed and savings of £500 result in a notional income of £1 under the proposed pension credit. I believe that the figure remains excessive—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must conclude his intervention.

Malcolm Wicks: That was an important and complex question. I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the pension credit. The Liberals are in some difficulties if they are honest on the pavement—a rare sight—and say that they are urging people to claim a credit that they would abolish if they came to power. However, that is a conundrum for them. The first £6,000 of savings are not taken into account. We estimate that 85 per cent. of those eligible for the pension credit will not have to bother us with details about savings. As he acknowledges, the withdrawal rate is more generous than it was in the past. We suspect that approximately half of all pensioners will qualify for pension credit, so there must be a cut-off point.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made some rather negative remarks about payment modernisation and direct payments. There are important reasons why the changes are happening. Order books and girocheques are vulnerable to fraud and theft; about £80 million is lost in the postal system and elsewhere every year. Sadly, on average, about 100 pensioners a week have their order book stolen, and some are mugged and seriously assaulted on their way to the post office.
	It is vital that we recognise the importance of the post office network. The Government are putting a great deal of resource into the network: some £2 billion over the next five years, including £450 million earmarked to support the rural post office network. It is not for our Department, or, indeed, the Government, to ensure the future of every post office, but ensuring that the Post Office becomes a modern banking service offering Post Office card accounts and facilities that allow people to draw out their cash using other bank and building society accounts—as I do at our local post office here in the House, using my own bank account—will stop people walking away from the postal service. If we look at the statistics for before the change was introduced, we see that almost six out of 10 people in the newer group of pensioners—those who have retired in the last year or two—had their pension paid into a bank or building society account. That is why we had to transform the system.
	To hear the Liberal Democrats whinge and moan about this issue, one might assume that applying for a Post Office card account was so difficult that only a few dozen people were doing it. In fact, I am advised that 1 million people have applied for one, and our working assumption is that some 3 million people will have them, although there may be more. It is up to the elderly person herself, not the Government, Ministers or the Post Office, to choose. I am sure that the new system will be a success. We are talking to the representative groups and listening to the issues as they arise. For those who find it impossible to access their money through a Post Office card account, or a bank or building society account, there will be a cheque-based exceptions service. We are working on its details, but I would like to assure the House that it will be there.

Alan Reid: The Government's amendment to our motion refers to
	"giving Post Office access through a number of current accounts".
	May I draw the Minister's attention to the situation in Scotland, where the current accounts of the three main Scottish banks cannot be accessed at the post office? What are the Government doing to reach an agreement with the Scottish banks so that Scottish pensioners may have the same rights of access to their bank accounts at the post office as other pensioners?

Malcolm Wicks: I recognise that issue, and discussions with banks are proceeding.
	Given that I am the Minister for Pensions, I have understandably focused on pensions issues, but it is important for us to recognise, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam did, that there is a wider agenda. A specific issue that is close to my heart is the need to attack fuel poverty. As a young researcher, I worked on the appalling problem of hypothermia, which became known as the "old and cold" problem. It is a scandal that people die in the winter simply because they are too cold to live.
	I am proud of the way in which we are tackling the problem. There is still some way to go, but the UK fuel poverty strategy, published in November 2001, was the first of its kind in the world. It set out a coherent programme to end the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010. What have we done so far? In England, the home energy efficiency scheme—now marketed as warm front—has assisted more than 600,000 households, and more than 30,000 new gas central heating systems have been installed. Grants have been increased to £2,500 for the over-60s. I am sure that all hon. Members who have visited elderly people benefiting from the scheme and seen the joy on their faces as they realised that they could now live in a warm home will back the project. The scandal of fuel poverty must be eradicated; it is a 19th century problem that should not have lingered on into the 21st century.
	In terms of a healthier old age—which will be dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet—the extra resources that we are putting into the national health service are absolutely vital, as are the extra resources that we are putting into social services. My hon. Friend will also deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam in that regard.
	We have set out programmes to improve the health and well-being of older people in the national service framework, which was published in March 2001. The framework delivers the commitments to older people made in the NHS plan. It tackles the differing levels of access to services and is rooting out age discrimination in the national health service. The framework will raise the quality and standards of health and social care for older people.

Richard Younger-Ross: I wonder whether the Minister feels any frustration towards the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in so far as the pensioners who are here protesting and lobbying today are concerned about the rise in council tax, which is a consequence of decisions made by the ODPM. The increase in Devon was 28 per cent. this year, and is likely to be 11 per cent. next year. Does that not undermine what the Minister is trying to do? Is it not time for him to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that one of the best ways to help pensioners is to axe the tax?

Malcolm Wicks: It is, rightly, not the job of central Government to set the level of local council taxes. We all want to see more localism. It is, however, the task of central Government to fund local government adequately. In real terms, we have put in an extra £9 billion since 1997, and this year's expenditure settlement was above the level of inflation. These are issues that citizens have to talk to their local councillors about. That is why we have local government. Our job is to fund local government as best we can—I believe that we are doing that—and, in terms of old people's incomes, to pursue the programmes that I outlined earlier.
	When I ask the many elderly people I know about the issues that count, they talk about safety, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. I talked to many people in my constituency over the summer about what was on their mind. It is always salutary to talk to people in the real world, as opposed to the world that some of us inhabit for too many months of the year here in Westminster. The issues out there are not always the same as those we discuss here; indeed, they are often very different. I have been struck by people's concern about crime and antisocial behaviour. We know that, among old people, the fear of crime is a major issue.
	We are doing many things to address the problem. Eighty-five neighbourhood warden schemes have been developed or extended, working in communities to tackle the fear of crime. There are more police officers across the country. Schemes such as "locks for pensioners" have provided security upgrades for pensioners on low incomes who live in areas where the burglary rate is above average. We are investing £170 million in 683 closed-circuit television schemes across England and Wales to make our towns safer. These things are important. Transport is important, too. Access to public transport is absolutely vital, as are the half-fare discounts that we have introduced since June 2001, which have helped some 7 million older and disabled people in England.
	In regard to adopting a positive approach to ageing, I would place an emphasis on education and lifelong learning opportunities. I once had the honour of being the Minister for Lifelong Learning, and I always recognised, as many elderly people do, that retirement is the new learning zone. Education is not just about younger people.

Steve Webb: Yet another cliché.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman has a lot of learning to do, if I may say so. A good way to do that is to listen.
	To illustrate the point that education is not just for the young, we once held a competition to find England's oldest learner. We found Mr. Fred Moore, who was then aged 107. Those of us who have been to online computer centres, to Learn Direct and to adult education institutions often find that the people sitting in front of the computers are our senior citizens. Why are they doing it? They are doing it to help them run their businesses, to pursue their hobbies as secretaries of various associations or community bodies, or simply to find out how to get into e-mail contact with their grandchildren or great-grandchildren who might live in the Antipodes or in Canada.
	Education is vital if we are to take a positive approach to ageing, and an important component is to recognise that all age groups contain people who do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills. One of my happiest moments as a Minister was visiting an elderly lady of about 73, who, through community opportunities, had learned to read and write for the first time. She had become literate—an opportunity denied her at school and in her working life. Her delight that she could write—she was writing essays and so on—was a wonder to behold. Retirement as the new learning zone is an important theme.
	This is a formidable agenda. Ageing is not a crisis facing societies, but it is a challenge and the Government are facing up to it.

Patsy Calton: I shall address my remarks to post office closures, as they are particularly apposite to what the Minister said about not being pessimistic about ageing. I intend to show that I am not pessimistic about ageing. I want older people to be able to exert their independence for as long as possible.
	So far, three post office closures have affected my constituency: two in the constituency itself, in Fir road in Bramhall and in Grove lane in Cheadle Hulme, and one just outside the constituency in Grosvenor road in Cheadle. We have just passed the so-called consultation period for the closure of Cheadle road post office. My colleagues, local councillors and I invited local people to tell us about their circumstances and to say how the closures would affect them. There was only a short month in which to conduct the investigation, but we did so. Some of the messages we received were poignant. As we suspected, we found that we were dealing with real people living in real, linked, identifiable communities, based around local shopping parades at the heart of which is often the post office—not urban sprawl, as the Post Office terms it.
	In other cases of possible closure, I have had occasion to speak with representatives of the Post Office about their so-called visits to the areas involved to get to know their characteristics. On close questioning and as a result of frequent letter writing, I found that their visits to local areas are based on geographic information systems. Those visits were conducted via computers; they were two-dimensional visits looking at streets and roads, with communities marked as grey shading around roads. Those representatives did not actually visit the area. That is not good enough; it certainly does not allow them to know what truly forms a community.
	The present public consultation is a sham, as the postmaster has already made it clear that he has decided to close one post office, and in the other cases we have heard that he intends to do so. We are not quite holding our breath but we are waiting to see whether we will receive the same standard letter about the closure of Cheadle road post office as was sent about all the other closures.
	We have received more than 100 individual replies about the matter, and many more have written to the Post Office team, and Stockport metropolitan borough council has also responded. The key point people made was that the distances quoted by the Post Office when they engage in consultation are as the crow flies, post office to post office; they do not take into account the additional distances that people often have to travel. The distance to alternative offices from more distant areas of my constituency, such as the lower parts of Buckingham road in Cheadle Hulme, Grange avenue and Warwick close, are much greater than the 0.7 miles quoted by the Post Office in the consultation.
	The distances quoted do not take into account the particular circumstances when the alternatives are examined. The alternative Mellor road post office in Cheadle Hulme may be accessible once people get there, but people in wheelchairs and elderly, infirm people cannot cope with the steep climb up the road to get to it in the first place. It is therefore impractical, and there are no alternatives to get to that post office by bus.
	Older and younger people recognised the valuable contribution that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses make to the community, and the impossible position that the Government and the Post Office have created for them. My constituents, like everyone else, use the post office for drawing their pensions, withdrawing money, buying stamps, paying bills by giro and using their council swipe cards, which the council introduced to make it easier for people to pay their council bills, and for posting parcels.
	Elderly people told us what a difference it will make to their lives if they cannot access the post office. For example, Mrs. Menges of 2 Rosthernmere road can walk to the post office now; she would have to drive to Turves road and Mellor road post offices, where the parking is inadequate; Mrs. Wright, who also lives in Rosthernmere road, has a walking disability, so although she walks to the Cheadle road post office she could not walk to the others; Mr. Ford, of 35 Farley court is an 80-year-old who can walk to Cheadle road post office but would not be able to get to the alternatives; Mrs. H. Scott, aged 92, and Mrs. M. Jones, who is 89, both walk to Cheadle road post office in spite of disabilities, but they cannot be expected to get on the bus to go to the other post offices.
	Dr. Al-Hassani can walk to Cheadle road post office in spite of having a disability but he, too, could not walk to the alternatives; Miss Holloway, who is 86, finds it hard to walk even to Cheadle road post office and certainly could not do so to the alternatives. Mrs. McDonagh of 105 Buckingham road suffers from chronic asthma, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis and is being treated for breast cancer. She could not reach the alternatives except by taxi, which she cannot afford. Mrs. Wellings is 86 years old and suffers from Parkinson's disease. Mr. Bean of flat 10, Regency Court is a younger person who is wheelchair bound and is looked after by his parents, who are in their 80s. They could not wheel him to alternative post offices, nor cope with getting him in and out of a car.
	I could go on. Mr. Masters who, in spite of being 91 and blind still manages to get to the post office—

Chris Pond: Before the hon. Lady moves on, I hope she will recognise that decisions on consultation on post office closures or changes are matters for the Post Office. Does she accept that the Government share her understanding of the importance of local post offices to local communities, and especially to older people? Will she also accept, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions said, that that is why we are putting £2 billion into the Post Office network, including £450 million for rural post offices, and why we welcome Post Office discussions with the banking sector to ensure that we can underpin the viability of the post office network by allowing it to offer banking services?

Patsy Calton: I am extremely grateful for the Minister's intervention, because I hope that such thinking will go into the decision on Cheadle road post office. If it does, that post office will undoubtedly be saved or some alternative arrangements will be made. Unfortunately, that has not been the pattern so far in my constituency, and we await the results of the so-called consultation any day now, which we are concerned will affect real people in real communities. The fact that they do not live in a rural area but, according to the Post Office, in a so-called urban sprawl, means that they do not get as much consideration as people who live in rural areas.
	We should maintain old people's independence, and ensure that they do not lose their links with the community. I tried the House's patience by reading out all those names, but there are dozens more people in the same position. If this post office closes—and I have no reason to suppose that it will be treated differently from the others—the cost of social services and health care will rise as all those people become isolated and dependent on others. I am delighted that they want to remain independent in their 80s and 90s. I glory in their desire to do so. The post office makes that possible, and motivates them to go out and collect their pensions by whatever means they choose. There is no local bank, and if the post office is taken away many of them will be unable to make the journey on their own. Along with local shops, the post office is central to their independence.
	If the closure is really necessary, what will be done to promote and maintain that independence? It is not sufficient to say that more will be spent on social care and health, for these are people who want to live without those services. Could not post offices, with the Government's encouragement, form an association with supermarkets? Could there not be mobile post offices? They would be a valuable accessory to the mobile library in Stockport, which has made a real difference, although Stockport is an urban area surrounded by suburbs.
	It is simply not right to say that the council tax is applied fairly. In my constituency, which is considered to be affluent, its application takes no account of the fact that 51 per cent. of people in the borough are receiving either pensions or benefits.

Annette Brooke: What concerns pensioners particularly is that while the state pension is the same throughout the country, council tax levels differ from mile to mile, and do not reflect the level of services. Some people pay less council tax than my constituents although they have free transport. Is there not a case for equal treatment?

Patsy Calton: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. People in their 80s tell me that they cannot afford to live much longer because the council tax keeps going up. They can cope with everything else, but the council tax is becoming too great a burden. It is not fair to expect older people to retire having made what they thought was reasonable provision, and then find that the council tax is the biggest cost that they must meet each year.
	The Government have a responsibility to communities, not just in regard to decisions on how much grant areas should receive and how much they should raise for themselves. The Government also have a responsibility when it comes to post offices and other small local services. The one thing of which I can be sure is that if those services are allowed to disappear, the Government and local communities will pay more in the long run.

Rob Marris: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) ended by talking about the council tax. It seems to me that the Liberal Democrats are again being somewhat two-faced on the question of whether they want decentralisation or centralisation in the context of equality of services throughout the country. I am in favour of equality, but I am also in favour of decentralisation. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not think I have heard them talk about council tax benefit today. They talk about ability to pay, but that is what council tax benefit is there for.
	The difficulties that exist throughout the country this year, especially in the south-east, have been caused by councils' unrealistic views over the years on the level at which they should set their taxes. In my area of Wolverhampton, in the west midlands, we have had no such problems, because the Government's new formula redresses the historic imbalance affecting the rate support grant—now the formula spending share—that the city council used to receive.
	Let me give an example to bolster my assertion that there was an historic imbalance in England. When I entered Parliament two and a half years ago, I moved into a property in the London borough of Lambeth. Like the property in which I have lived for many years in my constituency, it is in band D. I found that the council tax in London was considerably lower than that in Wolverhampton—not because Wolverhampton council is much more inefficient than Lambeth, as hon. Members probably realise, and not, as far as I can deduce, because the services provided for Lambeth residents are much worse than those provided in Wolverhampton. Given the considerably higher cost of conducting council business in London, I think the differential can only be explained by the historic imbalance of moneys from central Government. The adjustments that have been made surely redress that imbalance, as you may agree, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Neil Turner: The house in Wigan that I have lived in for some time is in band C, but I pay exactly the same council tax as I pay in London, where my property is in band E. Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's point?

Rob Marris: Indeed, and we as a Government are now working out how to redress the imbalance. That has caused difficulties in the past year, but it would have been wrong of the Government to back away.
	Should the Government allocate the additional £9.2 billion that they are providing to all pensioners, or only to the neediest? That question has caused a key political division between the parties. Not surprisingly, I support the Government. As a socialist I have always wanted to focus resources on the neediest in society, and that means applying the modern means-testing regime that we are introducing to pension credit and the Government's minimum income guarantee.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned pension credit and council tax credit. Can he confirm that council tax credit is reduced by the award of pension credit, and that therefore the Government are effectively giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

Rob Marris: I do not believe that council tax benefit, as it is called, will have that effect, and nor will housing benefit, but I stand to be corrected by the expert Ministers present.
	On targeting money on the neediest, figures from the House of Commons Library, which got them from the Department for Work and Pensions, show that expenditure on the minimum income guarantee for the financial year just ended—2002–03—was about £4.5 billion, at this year's prices. The projected expenditure on the pension credit for the next financial year—2004–05—is about £5.3 billion. There are 7.2 million single-pensioner households in the United Kingdom, and 2.8 million couple-pensioner households in which at least one of the couple is a pensioner. That totals about 12 million pensioners. If that pension credit money—the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, totalling some £9.2 billion—were evenly divided, each pensioner would get £16 a week. That would take the basic state pension for a single pensioner from £77.45 a week to £93.45 a week—in contradistinction to the single pensioner with the minimum income guarantee, who gets £102.10 a week. In round terms, that is £9 a week more for the neediest pensioners. I salute and support the Government for doing that.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the relevant Select Committee, is thoughtful and knowledgeable, and I have been following his argument with care. How does he reconcile the figure he has just given of £9 a week less for the poorest pensioners, if this money were spread evenly, with the absurd figure of £30 that the Minister quoted?

Rob Marris: I go by my own figures, although I always stand to be corrected. [Interruption.] I heard the Minister say £30 a week, but I go by my own figures. As the hon. Gentleman will agree, there would still be a considerable gap, even if his party's policy of introducing such a provision across the board were adopted. That is the key political divide, and it is one of the divides that we are debating today.
	I want to move on to something that rarely gets mentioned in terms of this Government's provision for pensioners: the massive increase in spending on the NHS. Two thirds of NHS spending goes on older people, and I support that. Again, that is supporting the neediest, with provision free at the point of use. So, in examining what this Government have tried to do to assist pensioners, we should not overlook that magnificent investment in the NHS, two thirds of which is rightly benefiting pensioners.
	I want to turn to the "pensions crisis", as the Liberal Democrat motion describes it. That phrase is very overworked and does not illuminate what is happening with pensions. In terms of pensioners' average incomes and the average amounts saved by prospective pensioners, there is no crisis whatever. Rather, as ever, there is an imbalance between poorer and better-off pensioners, which this Government are seeking to redress.
	The difficulties for prospective pensioners and for certain recently retired pensioners in company schemes have been highlighted—if not made transparent—by the Government putting forward the financial accounting standard FRS 17 and by the minimum funding requirements for pension funds, which disclosed under-provision in some private companies' works pension schemes. Those difficulties came about partly because the stock market came down, but principally because many private companies—not all—would not put their hands in their pockets to make up shortfalls in private pension schemes arising from pension contribution holidays that they had taken when times were better. In other words, they took the money out in the good times, but did not put it in during the bad times.
	There is also the scandal whereby managers of companies with company pension schemes suddenly retire when the company is about to go bust. They become pensioners three months later, when the company finally goes bust, and are thereby a different category of claimant from the poor working stiff who does not see the writing on the wall or have the inside information, is still employed and gets treated differently, in terms of their prospective pension, from the managers who have jumped ship.
	The final salary scheme debate has been used by companies as an excuse to cut their pension contributions. When companies move to a money purchase scheme for new entrants, they cut their pension contributions greatly—on average, by about half the employers' pension contribution to the works pension scheme. Companies have used this as an excuse to lessen the pension emolument that they pay to their employees. Given what we have experienced in the past three or four years, in the medium term, final salary schemes in the private sector will wither and die, particularly for new pensioners. Such schemes were designed to provide security. People who worked for a company for 40 years, say, knew what pension they would get. If it was an eightieth-based scheme, they would get 40 eightieths on retirement—in other words, a half-pension. Every year they would clock up an eightieth and get a half-pension if they stayed with the company for 40 years.
	However, the countervailing security is whether there is any money in the kitty to pay people out when they have done the 40 years. Those chickens have come home to roost, and in the medium term the work force, whether unionised—as they should be—or not, will not stand for a lack of security, whereby it is uncertain whether there will be any fund at all, or whether it will come anywhere near meeting promises that were made when in employment. Final salary schemes will be able to continue in the public sector because Government backing will be there to top up local authority schemes, for example, if necessary, but that will not happen in the private sector. We must look at this issue, because it is a question of how we view the term "security".
	When we as a society focus, as we should, on the under-provision of pensions for women in particular, we must note that final salary schemes often discriminate against the low paid, many of whom are women. A cleaner, for example, who has been in a local authority final salary scheme for 30 years, doing the same job and paying the same contributions, would get 30 eightieths, but if they were a cleaner for 20 years and worked for the final 10 as a supervisor, they would get the 30 eightieths at a much higher rate, even though they had paid only 10 years' worth of higher-rate contributions. So, although there is often sex discrimination, overall we are talking about discrimination against the low paid.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is normally a fair man in these matters, but he has come perilously close in the past few minutes to suggesting that such schemes are closing because of the wicked, feckless actions of the bosses, who are grinding the faces of their poorer workers. He will agree that that is not so. Many of these schemes are closing for proper, prudent financial management reasons, rather than for the reasons he came close to suggesting.

Rob Marris: As a former Select Committee member and a former Minister in the predecessor Department, the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters. However, some schemes have indeed ripped off members, and the employers have been, to use his word, feckless. As he points out, other schemes are closing because it is financially prudent to do so, but what constitutes financial prudence in a given climate depends on how one got there and on how much money is in the kitty. Before he seeks to intervene on me again, I should remind him that I did mention the fact that part of the current difficulty with private pension schemes—but only part—is the downturn in the stock market. However, the stock market, like capitalism, is cyclical, and as I said, some companies that took pensions contribution holidays will not now put their hands in their pockets when times are bad. Instead, they are closing the scheme, which is despicable to say the least.
	The Government are doing what they can in the current climate. We are in a transition phase, in that pensions have moved up the political and social agenda, which is a good thing. The Government are seeking to address some of the historical difficulties that have arisen under Governments of both political colours since the second world war.
	A major step forward is the pension protection fund, which will be designed to help workers who are ripped off and find that their pension scheme has gone bust or is significantly underfunded. Sometimes they find this out very much toward the end of their careers. If a company scheme goes bust, there will be a 90 per cent. kick-in from the insurance. I am delighted to say that the pension protection fund will have a cap regarding the salaries of high earners. Solvent employers—this touches on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—who choose to wind up their pension schemes, as they are legally entitled to do, will be required to meet their promises to that pension fund in full, and that will be policed.
	It is a step forward that the Government are looking at the priority order that applies on company insolvency, which has had particularly adverse effects on long-serving members who are nearing retirement and may have decided to work an extra five years, perhaps because their children are in university; but that is another debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, if the person at the next desk or bench decides to go and, two years later, the company scheme goes bust, the person who already receives the pension but who may have shorter service and may be slightly younger gets much better protection than the person who has worked there longer.
	Finally, I am delighted that the Government are at last making serious noises about the situation for workers when their employment is transferred. Every Member knows that under the acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, as amended, pensions are excluded. The EU made a mistake on that and the UK Government made a mistake in continuing that exclusion when we did not need to after the acquired rights directive was translated into domestic legislation in the UK. The Government addressing that issue is long overdue, and I hope that they do so to ensure that someone whose job is being transferred has protection for their pension as well as for their pay and conditions of work.

Andrew Mitchell: I fear that I could not possibly bring myself to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their motion today, but they have done the House a service in following the example of Her Majesty's Opposition yesterday and raising an important bread and butter issue that is of huge concern to our constituents. It is noteworthy that the Westminster village spends its time being obsessed by issues around the Hutton inquiry. However, there are many important issues in education, health, transport and taxation that are of great importance to our constituents on a daily basis, and I am glad to be able to take part in this debate today.
	I agree with the Minister for Pensions, who said that excessive negativism should be avoided. He was irritatingly reasonable throughout most of his speech; not something we usually get from Ministers in this rotten Government. It remains to be seen how the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), winds up the debate.
	The Minister for Pensions is right to inveigh against excessive negativism, to point to the fact that we are all now, thank goodness, living longer and to state that better medicine is keeping us alive and in a better condition for much longer. That is a good thing. I agreed also with the Minister when he set out the Government's policy on age discrimination. As someone already in his mid-40s, I recognise that this is an increasingly important agenda and I approve of what the Government are doing in that respect.
	I want to raise three issues. The first is the crisis in our care homes in Birmingham, a matter that I have raised in the House before and which remains extremely important and worrying. Secondly, I want to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) in his analysis of where the pensions crisis for existing and future pensioners now rests. Thirdly, I want to refer to an important point that was touched on briefly by the Minister—the effect of crime on the security of our old folk.
	Sutton Coldfield, for local government purposes, is a part of Birmingham. I have watched with great concern the way in which the crisis in our care homes has unfolded and the apparent inability of Birmingham's Labour council or the Labour Government to do anything about it.
	The issues behind care home closures were well set out by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who touched on the bed-blocking crisis, which is not directly associated with the problem but is close to it. He referred also to the fiasco of the Government's implementation and consequent withdrawal of the national minimum environmental standards for existing care homes, which caused great distress and anger across the country.
	We know that demand for elderly care is growing. Between 2005 and 2020, over 130,000 more people each year will require residential care than currently receive it, an increase of 25 per cent. The number of people receiving domiciliary care has fallen by almost 100,000 since 1997, a fall of over 20 per cent. The number of care home beds available has dropped by 13 per cent. since 1997, a loss of 70,000 long-term care places.
	According to the latest data published by Laing and Buisson in July 2003, 13,400 elderly care places were lost in the 15 months to April 2003 alone. A net 11,000 places were lost in the independent sector—often small, privately operated and voluntary care homes—in the 15 months to April 2003, an increase on the 9,600 places lost in the same time frame in the previous calendar year. A further 900 places in local authority-run residential homes were lost, along with an estimated 700 continuing care places in NHS hospitals. As a result of this capacity loss, supply has reached dangerously low levels; across the country, the average is 5.7 care home places per 100 people over 65. In the northern home counties, the supply ratio has dropped to 4.6, and in London it has fallen to as low as 3.8, one third lower than the average.
	Despite frequent warnings from industry bodies and the Conservative party, the availability of care continues to decline. Sometimes closure is inevitable, and several speakers have referred to the huge human cost of those closures. The closure of care homes not only causes disruption to vulnerable residents; on the Government's own reckoning, as many as 1,000 people every year may be dying as a result of care home closures. In general, over-prescriptive, expensive and bureaucratic regulation has greatly exacerbated the crisis in the sector and has driven many recent closures, including those of some high-quality homes.
	Hon. Members will recall the early-day motion tabled by me and my hon. Friends in respect of the Birmingham care homes crisis, which said:
	"That this House expresses its grave concern about the crisis in care for the elderly in Birmingham and elsewhere in England; is alarmed that over 80 care homes have closed in Birmingham over the last 18 months; recognises that a main contributory factor to this crisis is the decision by Birmingham Social Services to pay substantially less than the real cost of providing care for the elderly in care homes and that this practice is threatening to force good quality independent care homes out of business, causing grave distress and confusion to vulnerable, frail and elderly residents in Birmingham."
	That remains the case. I have said that I am appalled that Birmingham social services paid private care homes substantially less than the real cost of providing care for the elderly in care homes, a practice that led, obviously, to the closure of many more care homes.
	Mike Gimson, the spokesman for the Birmingham care consortium, which represents care home owners in the city, said that the consortium had been warning the council about the escalating closures. He said that the figures
	"prove what we have been saying. It is a disgrace and there is worse to come as the pressure increases. We are now facing the under-provision of beds in Birmingham."
	Birmingham has been particularly hard hit because of the action of local authorities that have discriminated against the private sector by paying fees way below the levels that they are prepared to pay to their own homes. Birmingham city council pays £570 per resident per week for its own social service places, but for private homes it is prepared to pay between £300 and £310 per week, and for nursing homes only £398 per week. That is an absolute disgrace. Approximately 100 private homes have closed within the past two years and last year Birmingham city council spent some £17 million on agency staff for social services. At the very least, that is indicative of the demoralisation of the department and its inability to recruit and retain staff.
	Even the social services inspectorate has acknowledged that there is a problem with care in Birmingham. The city is officially designated weak and is zero-starred. The Government pump money into social services, but except for domiciliary care and sheltered housing, the money is not ring-fenced. The result is a huge underspent budget for domiciliary and sheltered housing, and money intended for residential care is diverted elsewhere. The situation in Birmingham cannot be allowed to go on. It is an abuse of council tax payers' money and an absolute disgrace. Today I call once again on the Government to take steps to resolve the problem.
	My party has come up with a six-point plan for long-term care, which I have no doubt will be further elucidated by the Front Bench. One point was missing from the proposer's speech. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam accurately described much of the problem in the sector, but he did not go on to explain precisely what Liberal policy would do about it. Our six-point plan will reverse the decline in the number of care homes and remove unnecessary regulation, which is costly and often does not improve care. It will break down the rigid divide between health and social care, and lead to the greater integration of funding streams from health and social services. It will recognise the sacrifice of those who provide for their own long-term care, and make it easier for people to care for their elderly relatives in the home or in their own homes.
	My second theme is the pensions crisis. Nothing could more accurately exemplify how the Government have been caught in the headlights of the pensions crisis than the fact that for a considerable period the Prime Minister did not even deign to appoint a Minister for Pensions. Let us first consider the crisis for those who are already receiving pensions. In spite of the Minister's warm words about his intention to reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest in the pensions sector, that gap has increased—not decreased—by 16 per cent. since 1997.
	Let us examine the gross domestic product figures on how much we as a country spend on pensioners. Ten years ago we spent 6.2 per cent. of our GDP on pensioners, and we are now spending 6 per cent. Above all, perhaps millions of people are dependent on means tests. Soon many more will be dependent on them as a result of the pension credit. In 1997 some 37 per cent. of pensioners were means-tested; the figure now is 60 per cent., and it will not be long before it rises to 75 per cent.
	Of course I acknowledge the need for some means-testing—that is right—but not up to 75 per cent. One has only to listen to the words of a former Minister with responsibility for pensions, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has warned about the debilitating way in which means-testing undermines dignity, when people feel that they have to go cap in hand to the state. Means-testing is unwise and should, where possible, be avoided. I believe that a system in which 75 per cent. of people stand to be means-tested is bizarre.
	We have heard much discussion of the pension credit today, but I warn Ministers that they will find it extremely difficult to implement successfully. They have the example of the tax credit system to warn them of the dangers of implementing such new systems. I thought that the Minister might have been succumbing to the disease that afflicts Ministers of all parties in the social security sector, recalling what the previous Department was called—being persuaded by their brilliant officials that systems introduced through form filling and case management are essential in their complexity, but will work and be easily understood. History is littered with Ministers who believed that, but found to their cost that it was not true.
	On the long-term crisis in pensions, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was quick to say that he did not believe that there was one. He and I have debated in the Select Committee whether "crisis" is an accurate term. I persist in believing that it is. The Government have as yet failed to respond adequately to the scale of the crisis. They have been advised by the CBI, the TUC and, indeed, the Select Committee, as well as numerous other lobby bodies on the importance of taking action, but, like rabbits caught in the headlights, they appear to find it difficult to know what to do.
	Much talk has gone on in the House about the £5 billion per annum raid on pension funds, but I do not propose—important though it is—to rehash it today. More could have been done to prevent some schemes from closing, but even the stakeholder policy—one of the flagships of the Government's attempts to increase the amount of funded pensions—has been a lamentable flop. Practically no one in the target group has taken up the stakeholder pension, and the company schemes, which must be set up by law, have received very few takers indeed. Perhaps one bright spot for the Government is that they have at least had the wisdom to appoint someone of the calibre of Adair Turner as their pensions tsar. I hope that they will listen carefully to what he has to say when he reports to them.
	The funded pensions policy, which was bequeathed by the last Conservative Government to the present Government, was a great success. At one point we had more funded pensions in this country than all the rest of Europe put together. It is crucial for the Government to produce a sensible policy for future pensioners who will be retiring. They have not yet done so, and it is a travesty that it is now nearly two years since we last had a debate on pensions in Government time. Such debates that have taken place have been on Opposition days.
	Finally, I want to quote the right hon. Member for Birkenhead from an article in The Sunday Telegraph, and I hope that the Government will listen. The right hon. Gentleman said:
	"All too many families stand on the brink of financial disaster as they see their pensions snatched away from them. Failure to act will be punished by voters as surely as markets punish cuts in dividends. Government cannot continue to hide behind the claim it is consulting; it has been doing that for the past 6 years. What is now desperately required is action."
	The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right.
	My third point is about the way in which elderly people suffer disproportionately from crime in our society. As many hon. Members do, I conducted a survey on crime and related issues throughout my constituency. I was surprised by the massive response that I received, and particularly impressed by the emphasis on the debilitating effect of fear of crime. Fear of crime can have a massive effect on the quality of life of elderly people. It leads to exclusion from other activities in the community and a sense of isolation, and it certainly has an effect on health. A comparatively minor crime can have a disproportionate effect on elderly people and can be extremely traumatic for victims. The average age of victims of distraction burglary is 81, and it is a significantly under-reported crime because of the embarrassment that elderly people feel—wrongly—at being victims of it.
	We need to see more police on the streets. The popular view that a policeman on the beat stops a crime only once every 33 years misses the point. Having police on the street is reassuring to our communities. The lessons from New York about the success of more precinct policing must be evident to everyone and they are certainly now evident to the Mayor of London. I greatly welcome the decision by my party to pledge to increase the number of police by 40,000, if we are successful at the next election. It is pleasing to know that in that happy event, 2,600 more police would come to the west midlands.

Neil Turner: I have some experience in this subject because of the previous job of my boss and because I have just had to do some work for my mother. I certainly do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). My mother had to move from her home in Carlisle to the Wigan area, to be nearer to me, and I did much of the work involved. I found plenty of choice of residential homes and I managed to get her into a good one. It was brand new and around half full.
	Wigan does not have problems with bed blocking, because many of our old people are cared for at home by our excellent social services department. That may be the answer: we have an excellent Labour-run council, as confirmed by the comprehensive performance review performed by the independent district auditor. The Sutton and Cheam local authority, of course, is not as good.
	I also did not recognise what the hon. Gentleman—or the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—said about pension credit. I applied for the minimum income guarantee, as it then was, on behalf of my mother.

Steve Webb: Why did she not do it?

Neil Turner: She wanted me to do it because she has problems with her hearing. I was happy to do it and it took about 10 minutes. There were no byzantine forms to fill in and the only difficulty was trying to find out her national insurance number. The payment came through in about a fortnight and was backdated. The difficulties outlined by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam do not exist. The form-filling and other obstacles that he described do not happen for the majority of pensioners. They may arise in the Pension Service, but not for the person making the application.

Steve Webb: I apologise if I sounded defensive when I asked why the hon. Gentleman's mother did not apply herself. My point was that she had the advantage of having an able and articulate son to deal with the system for her, because she did not feel able to deal with it herself. Had the money been added to the pension, the process would not have been necessary.

Neil Turner: I shall deal with that point shortly. My experience is shared by hundreds of thousands of people. Most pensioners in my constituency find the system fairly easy, once they overcome the perception—promoted especially by the Liberal Democrats—that the scheme is difficult. It is not, and it puts people off when they are told that they have to fill in 40 pages of complicated forms.
	My mother was notified a couple of weeks ago of how much she would receive from the pension credit, and it is significantly different from what she would have got had we followed the Liberal Democrats' proposals. According to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, those over 75 would receive an extra £19 a week to add to the single person's pension of £77.45, so she would have received £96.45. She currently receives £102.50 under the pension credit. So according to the Liberal Democrats, my 90-odd year old mother should have her pension reduced by £6 a week. Others would benefit from their proposals. For example, Baroness Thatcher would get an extra £19 a week, and I am sure that she would find a good use for it. However, the Liberal Democrats will have great difficulty explaining to the people of Brent, East, let alone anyone else, why their proposal would mean that the poorest pensioners would lose more than £6, while those who are better off would gain £19 a week.
	Pension credit is important in getting extra money to the very poorest. That is a socialist principle that I am happy to support. It is allied to the recognition that people who have small savings or a small pension should be rewarded for their thrift, not penalised, as in the past.
	We must also face the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), which is the difficulty that some people have in accessing various services for pensioners. That is why we have made huge changes to the way in which the Pension Service operates. A fortnight ago, I held a forum for pensioners' groups in the Wigan constituency. Members of the Pension Service staff came along to answer questions and give details of the pension credit, including the relevant telephone numbers. I shall visit the town centre again soon with staff from the Pension Service to ensure that people understand the pension credit and how to apply for it.
	The whole point of setting up the Pension Service is so that it can play a much wider role. Far too often, pensioners are passed from one agency to another, from a local authority to the NHS and back again, or from one voluntary body or council department to another. It is a bureaucratic merry-go-round that can be debilitating for pensioners. The Pension Service is designed to be a one-stop shop to ensure that services for pensioners, be they public or voluntary, can be much more easily accessed. Pensioners can also obtain advice about the services to which they are entitled. People with difficulties hearing, such as my mother, seeing or understanding the forms will be able to contact the Pension Service and receive the help they need, perhaps including a home visit. It is important that the Pension Service be seen as part of an overall package with the pension credit to ensure that pensioners get their entitlements.
	I applaud the Government's advances on pensions. We introduced the minimum income guarantee early to tackle pensioner poverty. We have also introduced the winter fuel allowance, free eye tests and free television licences. In real terms, £3 billion has been given to pensioners over and above what they would have received if the pension had been increased in line with inflation. The pension credit will mean an additional £2 billion from October.
	I also welcome the introduction of the Pension Service to ensure that people can access services more readily and obtain the help that, all too often, they need. I welcome the help that the Government have given to future pensioners. We sorted out the problems with the state earnings-related pension, left by the previous Government. We also sorted out the problems with the financial services industry after the desperate mis-selling of private pensions, which left so many people high and dry with the loss of pounds and pounds a week. We have also introduced the state secondary pension, with the recognition that it gives to carers and the help it will give them in the future. Of course, we have also introduced stakeholder pensions. Despite what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, people are taking them up, as they allow those who would not otherwise have a pension to have access to a pension for their future.
	Most important in respect of the immediate future is the pension protection fund. It will guarantee that people whose company pension schemes have gone bust will get protection in the future.
	I shall be happy to support the Government amendment and to oppose the motion.

Nigel Waterson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) in these debates. One thing to have emerged from the debate is that, whereas Sutton and Cheam is clearly a near hell hole for older people's services, Wigan is a veritable garden of Eden. It is a place in which we should all aspire to grow old, under the hon. Gentleman's benign leadership.
	I am told that I should begin by declaring an interest, in that I have some private pension provision of my own. This is my first outing, if that is the right word, as the newly appointed official Opposition spokesperson on older people's issues. In modern jargon, my brief is crosscutting, and although there have not been many signs of joined-up government in the debate so far, I can promise joined-up opposition on these issues.
	Lots of important issues have been covered in the debate. I cannot do them all justice, but I shall start with the issue of care homes, which is close to my heart. There are many good care homes in my constituency, and they make up a significant part of Eastbourne's local economy. However, a number of very good ones have closed recently, as a direct result of Government policy. The Government were told—by us, by the Liberal Democrats and by everyone outside the House who knows anything about care homes—that they were making a massive error with their legislation on the matter. However, they blundered on and insisted on their proposals and, as we have heard, the latest figures show that 13,400 care home places disappeared in the 15 months to April this year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) explained very graphically the particular problem in Birmingham. However, the problem is replicated up and down the country, with many good private care homes being forced to close. All too often, councils insist on paying themselves much more than they pay the private sector, even though the accommodation that they provide is relatively poor.
	In collaboration with the Liberal Democrats, the Opposition attempted not that long ago to increase pensions significantly for older pensioners. We know that older pensioners are those most likely to be living in poverty. I am sorry to say that our attempt was defeated.
	We have heard a great deal about funded pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield reminded us that they are a great British success story, but they are seriously threatened by a combination of factors. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has rightly likened the matter to the film called "The Perfect Storm". The stock market has fallen, and people now live longer—although that greater longevity is of course welcome. However, other matters are within the Government's control, such as the Chancellor's £5 billion annual raid on pension funds.
	There has been an apparent lack of urgency when it comes to tackling the problems. Another Green Paper has been published, but the Government could and should do a lot more to increase and restore confidence in funded pensions. At least one fifth of company pension schemes have closed in the past 12 months. That is all the more worrying, as the Watson Wyatt survey on which that information is based predates the extra burdens likely to be placed on companies by the Government's pension protection scheme.
	The Government's stated aim is to restore confidence in funded pensions, which is vital. A whole generation of young people cannot be persuaded that putting money into pensions is the smart thing to do, because they see stories about problems with pensions every time they open a newspaper.
	The TUC, for example, has spoken about the erosion of the notion of shared responsibility, and has noted the decline of the mixed-economy approach to pension provision. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) outlined an even more dramatic problem that arises when companies go bust and take the pension fund down with them.
	There is a great deal of work to be done. A policy of compulsion appears to be developing through the mists of Liberal Democrat thinking, but the Conservative party does not believe in compelling people to make particular pension provision. However, we believe that the forces of inertia should be harnessed, so that people have to opt out of that sort of provision for their futures.
	That brings me neatly to the issue of pension credit. As I noted in an earlier intervention, we on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions were privileged to have the Secretary of State appear before us as a witness this morning. When I put it to him, he readily conceded that, even on the Government's projections, a million pensioners will not receive pension credit even though, on the face of it, they are entitled to it.
	Two fundamental matters wholly undermine the Government's approach to the policy, and the crucial one is take-up. As with so many of these benefits, take-up is limited.
	The Government have been very dismissive about criticisms of this flagship policy. Only recently, the Department criticised Mr. Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs at Help the Aged, for his comments on the system. Clearly unbowed, he said:
	"I'm afraid I rather upset them. It seems ministers are very tender at the moment. But it is not my fault if they design a system which is so Byzantine that no one can understand it."
	That is going to be the reality.
	The Secretary of State was almost alarmingly upbeat about the other matter that I put to him—whether the system can cope. The Child Support Agency offers an example of what happens when an old formula combines with a new technology, and now we have a possibly even more potent combination—a new formula and an old technology. It remains to be seen whether the fiasco of the tax credits, which caused our mailbags to be so full in recent months, will be replicated.
	Some of the claims in the Government's advertising campaign for pension credit are simply wrong and untrue. The central claim—that every pensioner will now enjoy a minimum income of £102.10—is simply untrue. The guaranteed income will be a mixture of existing pensions, savings income and, where necessary, a pension credit top-up. However, any savings will be assumed to generate a notional income of 10 per cent. a year. That is not bad; I wish that I could plug into that sort of return, rather than the more realistic 3 per cent.
	It is no wonder that the Department for Work and Pensions told The Sunday Telegraph that the publicity surrounding the pension credit had been kept "deliberately low key".

Sally Keeble: Has the hon. Gentleman checked that point? As I understand it, the imputed income of a certain percentage applies only when a pensioner has savings of more than £5,000—

Neil Turner: The figure is £6,000.

Sally Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend. The basic savings level is £6,000. The imputed income applies for every £500 on top of that. Overall, that does not work out at a return of 10 per cent. on the savings total. That is important for people who might be thinking of claiming.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Lady merely serves to show how complex the new system is for our constituents. I am sure that many hon. Members will be wondering what it will be like when their surgeries fill up with people who do not know whether they are entitled to make a claim.

Sally Keeble: I can understand it.

Nigel Waterson: Well, the hon. Lady has a good degree from a good university, but not everybody is as privileged—[Interruption.] She suggests that I might be able to understand it, but whether everyone will is another matter.
	I said that there were two issues. The second is means-testing. My party believes that the entire system is moving in the wrong direction. In 1997, only 37 per cent. of claimants were on means-tested benefits. This year, with the introduction of the pension credit, that figure could reach almost 60 per cent., and it is projected to grow to 73 per cent. by 2025. There are thus two extremely worrying aspects: take-up and means-testing, which promote a cap-in-hand approach for poorer pensioners.
	I shall touch on some of the other issues, especially those raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. We can all testify to the fact that big council tax rises are extremely regressive, especially for older people. In my constituency, the local council—sadly, it is controlled by the Liberal Democrats—put up its share by 38 per cent. this year, a staggering amount. No wonder the Liberal Democrats are dusting off their old proposals for local income tax, on the basis of "Please stop me before I do it again". If a local council, such as Eastbourne, can make such an increase under the current system, imagine what it could do if it could charge a local income tax, quite apart from the Liberal proposals for an energy tax, which would be even more regressive because utility bills are often painful for pensioners, for regional taxes, more taxes through the European Union and the Liberal version of a new inheritance tax.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that Devon, which is run by a four-party coalition, was led by the Conservatives last year when council tax was increased by 28 per cent., as proposed by the Conservative leader, Christine Channon. He may also be aware that, in her speech, Christine outlined the injustice of the council tax; she said that it should be abolished and replaced by a fairer taxation system.

Nigel Waterson: I should like to hear Christine's views on the matter, but that does not alter the fact that many Liberal Democrat councils, and those in which they participate, are making sharp increases in council tax.
	I endorse some of the comments that have been made about post office closures. All hon. Members should beware: the Post Office has embarked on a scheme to consider closures on a constituency basis. Eastbourne is privileged to be one of the first and the Post Office has come up with five closures in my constituency, so some time soon: "This is coming to a post office near you".
	I feel strongly about age discrimination. The Government have reneged on their pre-1997 promise to legislate on age discrimination. The EU has finally forced them to do so by 2006.
	We hear much from the Liberal Democrats about free personal care for the elderly, despite the fact that it seems to be bankrupting several local authorities in Scotland. Furthermore, some councils run by the Liberal Democrats charge substantial fees, up to £5,000 a year, for care services for the elderly.
	As on so many things, the Liberals are the "Do as I say, not as I do" party. They voted for greater bureaucracy for care homes, causing many homes to close.

Paul Burstow: So did you.

Nigel Waterson: No, we did not.
	Liberal Democrat councils charge heavily for care services for older people. They jack up council tax mercilessly and, in the case of my council, sack older workers merely because they turn 65—turning their birth certificate into their P45. Outside this place, in Brent, and indeed in Eastbourne, Liberal Democrats extol the virtues of the pension credit, but in the House, they say that they want to scrap it. They certainly do not mention the means-testing that is at the heart of its approach to poorer pensioners.
	I hope that the voters of Brent will have taken some of these points on board. Advice from the booklet for Liberal Democrat campaigners is that they should "act shamelessly, stir endlessly" and not "be afraid to exaggerate". That is how they operate throughout the country.
	I urge the Liberals to make the difficult journey from piety to reality and not to mislead people, especially vulnerable pensioners. They should drop their empty rhetoric and their hypocrisy. I shall not urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion both for those reasons and because the motion makes the ritual attack on the Conservative record in government. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain on the motion but to vote against the Government amendment, which is astounding in its complacency, even by the standards of this Government.

Sally Keeble: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I congratulate him on his appointment. I am glad to see that some of his colleagues have joined him on the Opposition Benches; for a while he seemed to be offering not so much joined-up opposition as a one-man band, which did not say much for the Conservative Opposition's commitment to older people, or for their support for a colleague on his first appearance in his new position.
	I agreed with the hon. Gentleman on one point. Although the Liberal Democrats did us a great service in bringing the issue to the House, some of the ways in which they presented their arguments did not help to tease out the important factors. They presented us with a catch-all set of grievances. There are real pressures and problems facing pensioners and they require long-term solutions, which must be agreed and maintained over time. What we put in place will, we hope, benefit pensioners for many years to come.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) offered us an example. Giving everybody a flat-rate increase of £19 week sounds nice, but we would need to explain two things. First, it would mean taking money away from the poorest pensioners, who would receive only £96 instead £102; and, secondly, because the Liberal Democrats are talking about changing from council tax, which is property based, to a local income tax, it would increase the burden of taxation for pensioners. Rather than going for cheap slogans, we should carefully examine the problems for pensioners.
	My constituency is in a "middle England" area and many pensioners do not fall into the poorest income ranges. However, there are specific historical reasons for pensioner poverty in the region. People worked for companies that have disappeared, such as those in the boot and shoe industry, which is in the process of change. A large number of women have broken employment records, because they took a break for family reasons. A phenomenally high percentage of women worked part-time and had no pension entitlement in their own right. In later life, they have been caught in poverty.
	People think that middle England is extremely affluent, but it is not. Northampton has a high number of people on low incomes. Even if they contributed to an occupational or second pension scheme, those pensions and their savings are now extremely low. I asked a group of pensioners, who were here for the lobby this afternoon, about the rate of their second pensions. They told me what I had heard before—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is nodding. I am sure that he knows the figures: about £15 a week, or £50 month. That is not much, yet people receiving those amounts will not qualify for some of the benefits designed to help extremely poor pensioners. We need to help pensioners who are in that poverty trap and do not have enough to live comfortably.
	The Government have done wonders in systematically considering what has made pensioners' lives so uncomfortable. I am sure that everyone will say, "Well, she would say that", but the Government have put in place very good programmes to tackle the real causes and symptoms of pensioner poverty. First, they have introduced the minimum income guarantee, which deals with the terrible problem of absolute hardship and destitution that existed among an awful lot of pensioners when we first took office in 1997. I am sure that all hon. Members had pensioners coming to their advice surgeries in dire straits because they simply did not have enough money.
	Targeted measures have dealt with some of the pressure points in pensioners' lives. The winter fuel allowance is absolutely wonderful. It has made a real difference and has tackled the problem of fuel poverty among pensioners, who used to get so cold during the winter. Pensioners now enjoy free television licences. Concessionary fares have worked better in some areas than in others. They have worked best in Labour areas, where Labour councils top them up and provide free transport for all pensioners, which is wonderful. Free eye tests are now available. One of the cruellest things that the Conservative Government did was to hit pensioners at a point when they were particularly susceptible.
	Measures have also been taken to ease the burden of income tax on pensioners, such as increasing personal tax allowances and introducing the new starting rate of tax. Pensioners will say that everyone on low incomes will get that, but those measures are really important when we consider how many pensioners are on low incomes. I know that many pensioners do not like to pay tax, but they have special tax protection, which I very much welcome.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) mentioned national health service measures, but I want to say a few words about the pension credit. The hon. Member for Eastbourne was quite wrong in his proposals, because the pension credit is an incredibly important benefit for those areas, such as mine, where a lot of pensioners are caught in the poverty trap: they have too much to be entitled to state benefits designed for the very poor, but they still do not have comfortable lives. It is important that those people at least feel that they will be comfortable if they claim the credit, and that if they do make a claim they do not feel intimidated; otherwise what the hon. Gentleman says about the numbers not claiming will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	The hon. Gentleman's point about savings and the interest rate was wrong. I agree that there is an assumption about earnings on savings. Some people might think about such things and say, "If only", but people can get help with making claims. If they do not have statements of interest from their banks or building societies, assumed amounts may be included in the booklets. Of course, as they can use assumed interest, they do not have to dip into their capital. They can keep their capital, which is very important for pensioners because it means that they can keep their nest eggs to pay for their funerals and save for other expenses in their very old age.
	It is quite wrong to frighten people by saying that they will be means-tested, because the system will be much more like filling in a tax form. People will not have to keep claiming, as they do with housing benefit and other benefits. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but people will have to submit a claim only when their circumstances change—otherwise, there will be a reassessment in five years' time—so the pension credit is not like an ordinary benefit.
	People can phone up, and someone on the end of the line can complete the form and send it to them for signing. I have been running a campaign about that in my constituency. Before doing so, I asked a couple of people to test the phone number, and it works; it is user-friendly service. I congratulate the Pension Service on doing some very good outreach work. People are going out to help those who do not have phones. The benefit has been designed in the light of pensioners' suggestions. Those of us who held meetings on the consultation document know that the policies emerging now are exactly those that pensioners said they wanted. I hope that the benefit will be a big step forward, certainly in areas, such as mine, where a lot of pensioners have some occupational or private pension or savings, but not very much.
	I agree that a good number of things remain to be done to improve pensioners' lives, and I am sure that the Government will continue to take on some of those things. The first thing to do is to ensure that next month's introduction of the pension credit is as smooth as the arrangements have been so far for claiming and outreach work. I am sure that many others will want that to happen.
	The development of home care packages is extremely important. That is mainly a job for local authorities, but such measures need to be in place if we are to provide pensioners with a decent standard of living in the years to come. We also still have to deal with pensioners who are asset rich and cash poor and find ways to secure their home ownership in their old age. That involves people who may have bought their council properties, as well as those in areas such as mine who have always owned their own homes, as it is often not cost-effective for them to move into smaller places.
	The Government must consider ways of supporting equity release—either by making it safer, or by introducing some sort of CAT mark—so that people can afford to pay for repairs, major maintenance and adaptations by releasing some of the capital value. In that way, people could achieve what they often want: to stay on with dignity in their own homes, without their homes deteriorating and failing down around them.
	I want to press a couple of final points. First, the procurement of residential care must be improved. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) should consider the incredibly imaginative work being done in Castle Vale in Birmingham, which has enabled more old people to leave hospital and return to their own homes. The work has involved very clever joint funding, and I commend that model.
	Secondly, we should look at some of the anomalies in the benefits package, so that pensioners who are carers can receive benefits that they should receive, including important mobility benefits that are denied to them.
	I recognise that some important and positive changes are taking place. Pensioners are living longer and enjoying better health, and they have higher aspirations. Female pensioners rightly aspire to be independent. As a society, we need to take on the challenges and to protect pensioners and their standard of living in their older years and give them dignity in their retirement. I believe that our Labour Government have made an incredibly good start, with some very thoughtful and well put together programmes, so I urge the House to support the amendment and not to go for cheap slogans, but to go for things that will give people security and dignity in their old age.

Hywel Williams: I welcome this debate on an important subject for older people in Wales, where 60 per cent. of pensioners live at the minimum income guarantee level—on or below the poverty line—and where the health of pensioners is worse than in the rest of the UK. It does not take an analyst of genius to link those two little facts.
	My concern is the centralisation of the Pension Service at the pension centre in Swansea, the perceived lack of a local service from local officers and the problems that have been reported to me with the Welsh language service. I met officials from the Pension Service a few weeks ago to discuss these matters, and personally found them helpful and committed to delivering the best service that could be managed. I do not, of course, hold those individual officers responsible, but the centralisation of the Pension Service in Swansea is by its nature a bad idea for Wales, given the geography of our country and the difficulties of communicating between north and south. I fear and suspect that we will continue to see a complication of the service, which will make it much worse. I am not saying that the problems at Swansea are unique—I would not be surprised to learn that similar problems exist at other pension centres—but it is the only one in Wales and is our national pension centre. As a result, its problems are a national problem in Wales.
	The problems with the pension centre are exemplified by a number of cases, and I hope that I am not being unnecessarily negative by examining the problems, which have been raised in my constituency surgeries. First, I want to mention the problems faced by Mrs. Williams of Porthmadog at the start of year. It took a one-woman campaign on her behalf to secure her pension. After five months of continual phoning, writing and calling the local office, she finally secured the pension. I hope that my intervention also helped her to some extent. It seemed to me that Swansea was unable to cope with the case, despite all the phone calls and the help of the local office. Mrs. Williams is a very determined person and someone who likes a certain degree of formality, as do many older people. She found it very difficult to deal with a different person each time, and she would have liked to call officials Mr. Jones or Miss Hughes—she found it difficult to cope with Dave referring to June, Jane, John or Joe. It is a small matter but an important one for some older people. As I said, she has managed to secure her pension and has received compensation from the special unit in Newcastle. She should not, however, have had to go all that way over five months to secure what should have been a straightforward matter—her own pension.
	The second case is that of Mrs. Harding from the community of Aberdaron, a small village at the very tip of the Llyn peninsula—about as far away as one can get from Swansea. People in Aberdaron would say that they live centrally, however, and that it is Swansea that is far away. I suppose that it depends where one starts. Mrs. Harding's pension, which used to be paid directly into her bank, disappeared. After a good deal of phoning around and phoning Swansea she was told that it had disappeared because she was dead. She was not dead—she was phoning them up. It took a large number of phone calls from her and from me, and letters from me, to restore her pension. I was told—the Minister might like to respond to this matter later—that when someone is registered or entered as dead in the computer system, it is very difficult for the computer to reverse that categorisation. I wonder whether a Lazarus programme could be devised to rectify that.
	Again, after a lot of trouble, Mrs. Harding has received a substantial compensation payment from Newcastle. I think that she would have preferred to have her pension paid directly into her bank properly—

Steve Webb: And bereavement benefit.

Hywel Williams: Perhaps.
	I want to refer briefly, given the pressure of time, to two other cases that were brought to my attention this week by a constituent who is an ex-Department of Social Security official, Mr. Ken Jones of Llanberis. The first was of a pensioner who had tried repeatedly to get through to the Welsh language line in Swansea. I should explain to hon. Members that there are two lines in Swansea—a Welsh language line and an English language line—both of which are very helpful at times. The person concerned found it very difficult to get through to the line in Swansea, however, and told Mr. Ken Jones that he suspected that the official eventually phoned from home rather than from the centre, as he apparently heard children playing in the background. Mr. Jones tells me that that would never have happened in his day at the DSS. Perhaps one might look back fondly on one's previous career, but he has a valid point.
	Mr. Jones told me that he often contacts the Swansea centre himself, and he feels that the officials there have to refer to someone else for an opinion rather too often, instead of giving an opinion directly. He also refers to Swansea being at the further end of Wales, and to the fact that the centre workers speak Welsh with a pronounced Swansea accent. He stated that some elderly people have despaired and have turned to the English language. I should tell the House that I tried to get the number of the Swansea pension centre today from our wonderful new directory inquiries system, and I was unable to do so. I eventually got through to a local office in Swansea, which gave me the number. It was the number for the English language line, however, even though I had begun the conversation in Welsh. I suppose that those are the complexities of running a bilingual service, but I would have hoped that the Pension Service would have ironed them out.
	The last case, which was again referred to me by Mr. Ken Jones, was of a widow who waited for payments for five weeks after her bereavement, and who then received a giro rather than an order book. Again, Mr. Jones referred me to earlier practice, whereby that person would have been paid very promptly rather than having to wait for five weeks.
	I can appreciate that this centre, like other centres, has teething problems. The consequences for individual payments and individual pensioners, however, are serious. Even if the majority of claimants get a first-class service, some do not, which is a matter of concern to me and to other hon. Members, as the effects can be disastrous. The point that my constituent, Mr. Jones, makes is that a system that was based locally would not have led to such problems. I know that there is a facility for local support and local visits. Is the Minister satisfied that that system is working? Will he tell us what provision exists for monitoring and reviewing the quality of the service from pension centres generally, and specifically from the telephone service in Welsh and English from Swansea? I fear that the complexity of the system will lead to problems, and that the complexity of the telephone system will lead to a disincentive to claim.
	On that point, I refer, finally, to the question asked by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) about whether the Government will set specific take-up targets for pension credits for Wales, Scotland and the regions of England. I would be very interested to know that.

Steve Webb: This has been an important debate. We have covered issues ranging from the closure of care homes and the pensions crisis to the burden of council tax. Those are matters of concern to all of our constituents, but of particular concern to many older people throughout Britain.
	The debate was opened expertly and powerfully, as we would expect, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I will not spare his blushes by mentioning that this morning The Guardian described him as one of the most knowledgeable and effective politicians on older people's issues. He demonstrated this afternoon why he has attained that reputation.
	My hon. Friend highlighted the crisis of closure of care homes. He drew attention to the fact that when a care home closes, those who have lived there have less security of tenure than a council tenant or someone living in rented accommodation. Yet that elderly person can be at their most vulnerable point in life. In some tragic and extreme cases, that disruption can be fatal. My hon. Friend was right to say that in the past 15 months, 13,000 care home places have been lost. That is unacceptable. The Government's amendment to the motion is woefully complacent and inadequate in suggesting what might be done in the circumstances.
	The Minister for Pensions, who spoke to the Government amendment, has a history on some of the issues that we have discussed to which I shall refer later, always assuming that he has wandered back into the Chamber by then.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) referred powerfully to the human cost of post office closures, which is another issue of particular concern to older pensioners. She referred to a number of her constituents who will struggle to an alternative post office when their local one is closed. She said that the exercise of walking to the local office is good for them and that the visit is sociable, but that when the local post office is closed, a lifeline will go with it.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was right to say in response to our concerns about the burden of council tax on pensioners that there is a council tax benefit, but he failed to say that that means-tested benefit has the lowest rate of take-up of any benefit. More than 1 million pensioners fail to claim their council tax benefit entitlement and, therefore, it is an inadequate safety net. Rather than have an unfair and regressive tax inadequately corrected by a failed, means-tested benefit, we would prefer a tax that relates fairly to ability to pay.

Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend is aware that we have been lobbied today by pensioners, and among those lobbying me was Mr. Cayley. His family has a fairly good income of £17,000, but it is paying £1,900 in council tax. That represents 11 per cent. of the family's income. Even those on better incomes are being hurt by the high levels of council tax.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Those who are hurt hardest by the council tax are not those who are on the lowest incomes, who may have their council tax met in full or in part, but those who have worked hard and saved hard, and have to face that tax burden in full. When one tax comes to represent 11 per cent. of someone's income, clearly something has gone very wrong.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) suggested that replacing the council tax with some form of local income tax would in some way be unfair to pensioners because that would mean getting rid of a property-based tax. Given that two thirds of pensioners pay no income tax at all, they would be the principal group of beneficiaries in a switch away from council tax to local income tax.

Sally Keeble: I actually said that if we sloganise and, for example, talk about flat-rate increases, and then talk about changing from a property-based tax to an income-based tax, there will be unforeseen consequences. I think that the two measures have not been thought through properly by the Liberal Democrats.

Steve Webb: I recall from the hon. Lady's remarks that she said that, given that many pensioners are property owners, a move from a property-based tax might be to their detriment. Many parts of Europe and the United States run local income tax systems perfectly effectively. Given that two thirds of pensioners pay no main income tax, they would be the principal beneficiaries of such a move.

Rob Marris: I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but what is the provenance of his statistic? The Library tells me, using the Department for Work and Pensions pensioner income series, that it estimates that 60 per cent. of single pensioners have gross weekly incomes of more than £150, and that 60 per cent. of pensioner couples have gross weekly incomes of more than £250. I would expect that to mean that at least those 60 per cent. of pensioners would be paying income tax. That is a different figure from the one that the hon. Gentleman is giving.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman needs to bear in mind that not all sources of income included in his gross weekly income figures are taxable. It has been understood for many years that roughly one third of pensioners pay tax.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) raised the important issue of care home closures specifically in Birmingham, and drew attention to the pensions crisis, a crisis that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West believes does not exist. Tell that to those who are in company schemes that have recently been wound up with inadequate funds. Tell that to people in their 40s and 50s who now fear that they do not have a secure retirement ahead of them.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who now speaks for the Conservatives on older people's issues—I congratulate him on assuming that role—quite properly raised the issue of pension scheme closures, and highlighted the missing 1 million pensioners who, on the Government's figures, will not claim their entitlement to pension credit. He also criticised the Government for assuming that pensioners can get 10 per cent. income on their investments as part of the pension credit rules. That is clearly absurd. He glossed over the fact that in 1988 the Conservatives introduced similar rules that assumed that pensioners could get not 10 per cent. income on their savings but 20 per cent. The House and the electorate would do well not merely to look at the Government's performance but to remind themselves of the Conservatives' record of doing precisely nothing when they had the chance to do something.
	The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) quite properly drew attention to his family circumstances, and said that his own experiences of the Pension Service had been positive. I welcome that. However, I intervened to highlight the fact that his elderly mother had found it preferable to ask her son to deal with the authorities. Surely, a system that worked well to maintain the security and dignity of pensioners would guarantee that all pensioners could deal with matters themselves without needing the assistance of family members.

Neil Turner: I also referred to the importance of access to the Pension Service; employees of the service can go to people's homes to help them fill out the forms. The Pension Service is a hugely important step forward in making sure that ordinary pensioners get the services that they deserve.

Steve Webb: I am sure that everyone in the House would like the Pension Service to succeed and provide a higher standard of service than that which is currently provided. However, its employees would not have to make home visits to deal with applications for means-tested benefits if people got a decent pension in the first place—that would be a better way of operating the system.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) expressed concern about the centralisation of the Pension Service in Wales, and drew the attention of the House to the case of a constituent who had had her pension stopped because she had been told that she was dead. It is understandable that those who write the computer programmes do not normally allow them to reverse such transitions, but it illustrates a problem. When the IT systems of a Government Department are as ropey as those of the Department for Work and Pensions, such things will happen. We are concerned that when the pension credit is introduced next month many pensioners will have experiences similar to that constituent.
	The Minister began with a social policy analysis of the issues affecting older people, which we all enjoyed and took us back to his days as an academic. I was intrigued that he attacked Sarah Teather, our excellent colleague who is fighting the Brent, East by-election and who we hope, next week, will be an even more excellent addition to the House of Commons, for encouraging people to claim the pension credit. A few moments before, he had exhorted us all to encourage people to claim the credit. Am I missing something? One minute, the Minister says that he hopes everybody will encourage people to claim the pension credit, but when the Liberal Democrat candidate for Brent, East does so, that is apparently outrageous behaviour.

Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb: If the hon. Gentleman had been here throughout, I would do so.

Malcolm Wicks: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will the Lib Dems scrap the pension credit, yes or no?

Steve Webb: No. We have made it clear that in government we would spend that £2 billion on the pension for the over-75s. That proposal was in an amendment that we tabled with the Conservatives to the Bill that introduced the pension credit. Once the credit is introduced, we will not scrap it. As the next party of government we will replace the dependence on means-testing with greater dependence on the universal state pension, particularly for older pensioners. In other words, as the economy grows and Governments have to decide whether to put money into means-tested benefits or a universal state pension, we will opt for the pensions route. That is the difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Government.
	I suggested that the Minister has a history. He used to be a free thinker. Indeed, some people have unkindly suggested that the delay in his attaining ministerial office—his appointment was long overdue, I hasten to add—was partly attributable to the fact that he had a tendency to free-think rather too much.
	I happen to have with me a copy of an article by the Minister that appeared in the New Statesman a year after the 1997 general election, entitled "Back to Beveridge's Basics." [Interruption.] It was a very good article and I commend it to the House. I am not sure whether I have the authority to place a copy in the Library, but I would like to do so. In the article, he asked himself this very important rhetorical question:
	"Should social security policy abandon notions of universality and focus all available resources on the poor? It is time to give a loud 'no' in answer to this question."
	He went on to write:
	"the notion of citizenship is diminished if the welfare state deteriorates into a mere poverty relief programme. And the main sufferers would be the poor themselves, subject to more means tests."
	That is the dreadful thing to which they would be subject, and they would be "marginalised and stigmatised." The article goes on to state:
	"And it would be a slippery slope: if pensions and child benefits are means-tested, why shouldn't we means-test access to doctors and hospitals and schools?"
	Those are the Minister's words and perhaps that is his agenda—I do not know. I sometimes ask myself what happened to that idealist of a few years ago. Perhaps the House should reflect on his concluding comment:
	"No one of sound mind could advocate wholesale means-testing".
	How right he was.
	To coin a new Labour phrase, I always believed that means-testing should be for the few and not the many, but what sort of policy do we have? It is one in which the majority of pensioners will be allowed to retire into poverty only for some of them to be rescued by a means test. Is that really a vision for 40 years down the line? Should it not be the Government's goal to ensure that the vast majority of pensioners reach pension age with decent pension entitlements in their own right, so that it is the few who have slipped through the net who need lifting out of poverty, not the many? How can a Government have so little ambition for Britain's older people that they allow this situation to persist?
	The Minister did not refer to the council tax at all. I wonder why he did not do so and why he did not accept that, year after year, the council tax, which was created by the Conservatives and has been built on by the Labour Government, is becoming more of a burden, especially for Britain's older people. Those are the people who have modest incomes beyond the reach of the benefits system. They have worked, saved and budgeted hard and expect to have a particular standard of living, but find that, through inadequate central Government funding, the council tax is an increasing share of their income and more of a burden. Who is responsible? Year in, year out, central Government builds in an assumption that revenues from the council tax will rise far faster than inflation. Year after year, Governments and local authorities of all political parties and none ratcheted up the council tax, and what do the Government do about it? They have done nothing to address the burden of the council tax on Britain's older people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle raised the important issue of post office closures. The Minister is to some extent responsible for that policy. He spoke about giving pensioners choice. He even said that about 60 per cent. of newly retired pensioners opt for payment into a bank account. That is fine, as it is their choice. However, 40 per cent. want an order book. Faced with a choice between payment into a bank account and an order book, they want the latter, but the Government are going to take that choice away from them. I am most concerned not about newly retired pensioners, but about the elderly and infirm pensioners to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle referred, who can just about make it to the local post office and enjoy the social contact, value the order book and have opted to have the book by not choosing payment to a bank account. Why do the Government not respect that choice? They are guilty of a lack of respect of older people.
	We make no apology for the fact that our motion is wide ranging. Older people quite properly have a sense that Britain is an unfair place for them. They have worked and saved hard. They were told that the welfare state would be there from the cradle to the grave, not from the cradle to when they really needed it most, when the carpet would be pulled away from under them. That is what the Government are guilty of.
	We have heard no response to the care homes crisis, the pensions crisis, the closure of post offices or the burden of the council tax. The Government's attitude has been complacent; I hope that the Minister will do rather better.

Stephen Ladyman: The debate has been, as usual, good-humoured and enjoyable. It has also been informative, although I doubt whether it informed us in quite the way that the Liberal Democrats hoped. It tells us that they have not changed their ways—they would rather make a lot of noise and issue a lot of press releases than do any serious thinking about an issue. Although this is their Opposition day, and they started by saying that the issue is one of the most important of the day and absolutely key to their policies, at times they did not even have any Back Benchers in the Chamber and very few tried to contribute to the debate.
	We have heard so many contradictions that it is difficult for me to figure out where to start, but I shall do so with a word that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—choice. That represents the key dividing line between what the Liberal Democrats intend for older people and what this Government intend. When the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) opened the debate, he used the phrases, "People stuck in hospital when they are ready to go to a care home," and, "We want elderly people to go to a care home at the right time and the right place." The assumption that the Liberal Democrats make in all their planning is that the right place for older people is a care home. That is the inevitable consequence of everything that they try to do in local government and other places where they have positions of power, such as Scotland, and of what they are trying to do here in Westminster.

Eric Martlew: To emphasise what my hon. Friend says, in Cumbria, where the Liberal Democrats are in control of the county council, the first thing that they did when they got power was to increase home care charges, despite having said during the election that they would not. We now have 250 pensioners who cannot afford home care any more because of the Liberal Democrats.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the House's attention, because I bet that it is a story that is repeated all over the country wherever the Liberal Democrats are in a position of power.
	Let me give an alternative view of what we should be offering to older people. Primarily, we should assume that older people know best what they want. We should bear it in mind that this is the generation that got us through a world war—in many cases, two world wars. We intend to respect their right to control and make choices about their own lives. We want them to have a spectrum of choices for their old age, ranging from being looked after in their own home to a variety of provision, including extra-care housing, residential care and nursing care. We want to enable them to make practical decisions.
	Yesterday, I had the privilege of opening Alexandra house in Coventry—an extra-care facility that was created as a result of some foresighted thinking by the Anchor trust and Coventry social services. The council is Labour run, I might add. Every resident has their own flat—not a room, but a flat, with a living room, a bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen and its own front door. Although the front door opens not on to a street, but on to a corridor, the corridors are named after streets, so people live in, say, 31 Primrose way instead of a numbered room in a house. It is therefore a private home where the individual can close the door on the rest of the world whenever they want. There, I met an elderly lady in a wheelchair who is no longer able to see or feed herself—she is fed through perentaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or PEG, feeding—and needs total and constant nursing care. Yet she lives in her home with her own space and privacy. She is able to do that because she can plug into the services that she needs when they are required.
	We should like to extend the model of extra-care housing to give additional choice to older people. Some people could choose to rent extra-care housing and others could choose to transfer the equity from their homes to buy it. There would be a range of provision, and people could make the choice when they approached retirement age. They would know that, as their care needs progressed, they could plug into different, more intensive care packages. We want to add such provision to the spectrum of choice. We are realising that by devising an £85 million competition to encourage people to propose ideas for creating such extra-care facilities. We shall not assume that people want to be in a care home. Our planning will be predicated on giving people genuine choice.
	Before considering care home closures, I want to deal with some aspects of pension credit. I shall not do that in depth, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions did so earlier, and I do not pretend to be an expert on it. However, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) raised some local issues involving the centralisation of the Pension Service in Wales. He made some constructive points that deserve a constructive answer, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions reads his comments and takes them on board. I shall deal with two points.
	First, the hon. Gentleman said that 60 per cent. of pensioners in Wales rely on the minimum income guarantee. That means that 60 per cent. of pensioners in Wales benefit from our targeting resources on the poorer pensioners—those who need them most—rather than spreading them too thinly.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that there are two language lines for people in Wales to ring when they claim minimum income guarantee and pension credit. Of course, there should be two language lines and their existence shows the detail into which the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pension Service go to ensure that everybody can easily claim the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. The fact that people can do that by telephone and that Pension Service officials will go to people's homes to help them to apply for the benefits shows the lengths to which we go to boost the number of claimants and ensure that everyone can claim. The Department and the Pension Service should be congratulated on their work, and not encounter the sort of blocking that Liberal Democrats are attempting.
	Events in Brent, East have constituted another sub-theme of the debate. Liberal Democrats in one place claim that they would scrap the pension credit, but in Brent, East they claim that it is wonderful. For the first time, I witnessed a political party changing its policy three times in one debate. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam began with an explicit statement that the pension credit should be scrapped and that we should give £19 extra a week to people over 75. [Interruption.] That is what he said—I am not going barmy and I did not imagine it. Anybody under 75 would not benefit from that Liberal Democrat policy. When he claimed that he would get rid of means-testing, he did not mean it because £19 is not as much as the total minimum income guarantee, which is closer to £26. Anybody who did not benefit from the £19 and remained worse off would have to be means-tested to reach the minimum income guarantee, and anyone under 75 would still have to be means-tested to get the minimum income guarantee.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam sits here trying to give the impression to the pensioners of this country and the voters in Brent, East that if his party were in power, it would scrap means-testing and give everyone an extra £19 a week, but he is going to do neither of those things. By the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Northavon had said, "Well, we did believe in scrapping the pension credit when it first came out, but we've changed our mind now. We're going to keep it." Yet, by the time he had reached the end of his speech, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions as to whether he would scrap it he said, "No, but if we were in power, we would shift to some other means of providing pensioner benefits." He had changed his policy within 15 seconds of making it, which has to be a record, even for the Liberal Democrats.
	Let us move away from pensions, although that will not involve moving any closer to an issue that the Liberal Democrats have done any serious thinking about. Let us consider the so-called crisis in care homes that they keep talking about. I would be the first to admit that, in some parts of the country, there are some difficulties in respect of capacity in care homes. How are we dealing with that? We have given local authorities substantial extra funding, along with the responsibility to manage care home capacity in their own areas. We have given resources above the level of inflation since 1997. We have given local authorities nearly a quarter more funding for personal social services, and they can use that money in any way they want—to balance provision between domiciliary care and care homes, or to stabilise the care home market, for example. They can do whatever they want with it, because we believe in local government autonomy. That is something that the Liberal Democrats are always telling us that they believe in, yet as soon as local authorities make a decision that they do not like, they want us to intervene from Whitehall.

David Heath: Where is it working?

Stephen Ladyman: It is working all round the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) told us how it is working in his constituency. He has a Labour council—that is why it is working there. Why is it that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members raise the issue of problems in the care home market? It is because most of them have constituencies with Conservative and Liberal Democrat local councils. Labour councils balance these provisions in the way that they were intended to be balanced. Let me give the House one final figure on care home closures. There are 500,000 care home places available in this country, yet only 460,000 people want to use them. There is still excess care home capacity.
	With regard to domiciliary care, we want to give a real choice to older people. No less than 80 per cent. of older people tell us that they want to stay in their own home for as long as possible. The suggestion by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam, for Northavon and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) that there are now fewer domiciliary care packages in place is—dare I say it—a sophisticated use of spin. The reality is that the number of hours of domiciliary care provision is now 14 per cent. higher. The difference is that home care packages are now being properly targeted on the people who need them so that they can stay in their own home, rather than being spread among all elderly people. We are taking practical steps to keep people in their own home.
	We believe in choice, respecting older people and giving them security in retirement. The Liberal Democrats believe in taking away that choice and security. They believe in introducing policies that might help a few pensioners, but at the expense of destroying the economy, slashing the value of pensions overall and taking choice away from everybody. That is not what the Government are about. We are about respecting and valuing old age, and ensuring that people have cash in their pockets when they become older. This Government ensure that people have choice of provision when they get older and we respect their right to choose. That is what the Government are about, and I advise the House to treat the Liberal Democrat motion with the contempt that it deserves.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 182.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes that from 2004–05 Government will be spending £9.2 billion extra per year in real terms on pensioners compared with the 1997 system; notes this is £5.7 billion more than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings; recognises that the poorest third of pensioners will be £1,600 a year better off in real terms compared with the 1997 system; applauds Government action for older people on health and social care, fuel poverty, transport and lifelong learning; approves of action to stabilise the care home sector by increasing resources available to councils to increase care home fees where required; supports the Government's commitment to increase resources available for social services by on average six per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years, the expansion of intensive home care support, and the largest ever sustained increase in funding for the NHS; welcomes the real terms increase of 25 per cent. in grant to local authorities since 1997, and the review of the balance of funding between central and local government; further welcomes the successful introduction of universal banking services, giving Post Office access through a number of current accounts, basic bank accounts and the Post Office card account; congratulates Government on its intention to bring in Pension Credit from October; notes eligible households stand to gain on average £400 a year; and applauds the actions of the Government which result in over 1 million people being ready to receive Pension Credit who will gain more money than they had before.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reliably informed that yesterday the official spokesman for No. 10, Downing street told the Lobby that the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee had been handed to the Prime Minister that day. However, when the Prime Minister was asked earlier today in the Chamber why he would not publish the report, he said—as far as I can remember hearing—that he could not possibly publish it today because he would not have it until tomorrow. There is a serious inconsistency between what No. 10 told everybody yesterday and, unsurprisingly, what the Prime Minister told the House today. Can you help the House to sort the matter out? It is a matter of the greatest importance and considerable controversy. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say something to the House that is in direct contradiction of what his spokesman told the Lobby yesterday. May we have this matter sorted out before much more time passes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I am not in a position to help him because I am not aware of the detailed points he has made. No doubt the House will have heard his points and they are, of course, now on the record.

Role of the United Nations in Iraq

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the publication of the recent draft resolution of the United Nations Security Council on Iraq; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to honour the Prime Minister's commitment to give the United Nations a vital role in the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq through a new Security Council Resolution which would expedite the restoration of sovereignty and democratic control to the Iraqi people, place the process of political transition under the auspices of the United Nations, transfer the whole responsibility for the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq to an Iraqi provisional government assisted as necessary by the United Nations and replace existing security arrangements with a multinational force under unified command obliged to report to the Security Council.
	Those who have come here today hoping for a partisan debate, like yesterday's, will—I hope—be disappointed. We have chosen to ask the House to consider a serious matter and I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for being present. I know that he had other obligations for today that he has cancelled in order to attend the debate.
	The scepticism of me and my party about the military action against Iraq is well documented, but nothing in the events of recent weeks—the Hutton inquiry, the fact that we still have not found weapons of mass destruction capable of deployment within 45 minutes, the Foreign Secretary's memorandum setting out, with admirable clarity, the risks and responsibilities of Government policy towards Iraq or today's allegation of a leak from the Intelligence and Security Committee—has persuaded me that my scepticism was other than well founded. However, we have a duty to deal with events as they are, not as we would like them to have been.
	If I were to allow myself a brief moment of self-indulgence, it would be to point out that on the East river it will not be lost on those who work for the United Nations that the institution that was bypassed in March as part of the problem is being assiduously wooed in September as part of the solution.
	When the force commander on the ground asks for more troops for an operation that the House of Commons authorised by democratic vote on 18 March, there would have to be a very good reason to refuse the request. In my view, no such reason exists. I understand the reluctance of some to acquiesce in the sending of more troops, but it is not realistic or fair to ask forces to fulfil tasks for which they have inadequate resources.
	Some would argue that the logic of refusing more troops is that the forces already deployed should be withdrawn. However, one need only pause and ask what the consequence of withdrawal would be. Would Basra be made safer for its citizens? Would electricity and water flow more regularly? Would aid agencies find it easier to operate? The answer to those questions is self-evidently no.
	The additional forces now being sought are necessary for two principal purposes—to help to achieve the humanitarian objectives to which I have referred, and to keep safe those already there, both military and civilian.
	What would be the military consequences of withdrawal? It would create a vacuum in which disaffected members of the Ba'ath party, the sullen soldiers of the disbanded army and the suicidal jihadists would flourish. The current deterioration that all recognise would accelerate out of control
	However, the deployment of the extra troops can be seen only as a stopgap that allows an opportunity to buy time. The deployment, to be added to in the way that has been suggested and indeed already implemented, cannot go on for an unlimited time, for military and economic reasons. A former leader of the Conservative party asked three questions last September to which no one has been able to provide answers. He asked what the exit strategy was, how many British troops would be required, and how long they would be required to be deployed. Those perceptive questions of 12 months ago remain unanswered.
	Sooner or later, there will have to be an exit strategy. I suggest that it will be based either on a determination that the job has been done and the objectives achieved, or on a recognition that we can no longer do the job and that we should go. However, that is not a matter for today.
	The House and the country are entitled to more detailed information about the financial costs to date. What are the daily and monthly costs? What are the projected costs? I was not satisfied with an answer that I received on 10 July from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have written to the Chancellor again today to ask for further information, but it has become overwhelmingly clear that the burden in Iraq has to be shared. I have no doubt whatever that the best way to do that is through the UN, which now enjoys belated recognition among even the most neoconservative elements in Washington. Truly, rumours of the UN's death are shown to have been grossly exaggerated.
	I turn now to the military position. We need a resolution that mandates a multinational force under unified command. In that respect, there is nothing between me and the Foreign Secretary. We must be realistic, and accept that that force will be under US command. The force, and the command that is established, should be modelled on the arrangements for what we might now call Gulf war one. The command should be obliged to report to the Security Council, as happened in Gulf war one.
	I do not know how many hon. Members have had the opportunity to read the draft resolution now circulating in New York. Those who have read it may have noticed that it uses the phrase "all necessary means", in contradistinction to the earlier phrase "serious consequences". If "all necessary means" had been in people's contemplation last October and November, it is possible that some of the difficulties encountered by the UN might have been avoided.

Simon Thomas: Earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the interesting remark that we might have to withdraw from Iraq because of a recognition that we cannot achieve our objectives there. Is that possibility more likely to come to pass if we retain a command structure that is under the control of America and not the UN? If the UN were calling the shots in military terms in Iraq, would the withdrawal under the conditions that he describes be less likely? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say a little more about how there could be an American command structure that would, nevertheless, be recognised internationally as answerable to the UN?

Menzies Campbell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House in 1990 and 1991; the answer to the second part of his question is that precisely such a structure was established for the purpose of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. It was under the command of General Schwarzkopf, and General Sir Peter de la Billière was the senior British representative. The French were also represented in that command and the representation of other contributing nations related to some extent to the value and degree of their contribution. It is perfectly possible to create such a command. Our motion seeks to establish that the command is authorised by the UN and obliged to report back to the Security Council.

Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) before I take his intervention.
	On whether we are more likely to succeed through the UN or through existing arrangements, I have no doubt whatever—indeed, it is implied in the motion—that we shall much more easily and effectively achieve the objectives that we regard as desirable through not only a multinational security arrangement, but also an arrangement for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq conducted through the UN. That would enjoy far greater legitimacy than proposals and measures from a coalition about whose right to continue with such measures there must be, at least, some legal doubt as, to some extent, it is stretching its responsibilities under the Geneva convention.

Alex Salmond: The right hon. and learned Gentleman examines such things extremely carefully, so he will have noticed that the Government amendment refers to the existing command structure, as did President Bush's "Come and join us" appeal earlier this week. Will he confirm that he is not in favour of the existing command structure being sanctioned by the UN, but rather that he is looking for one that is properly authorised by the UN?

Menzies Campbell: I thought that I had already said that, but if it is necessary to repeat it, I want a command structure based on that for Gulf war one, which was both legitimate in terms of the legal powers that it created and politically acceptable because it required the command to be answerable to the Security Council. That is why I responded to the hon. Member for Ceredigion by saying that we were much more likely to achieve those objectives through the UN than by following the existing arrangements outside the UN.
	Such a force with such a mandate ought to be able to attract contributors from militarily capable nations such as France, Germany, India, Pakistan and even perhaps Turkey. I used the words "militarily capable" deliberately; it is one thing to have troops assigned from a member of the UN to a command of that kind, but we must have troops that are properly led, properly equipped and properly trained. Some hon. Members will remember the lessons of Bosnia where troops were assigned to a UN force—a blue-helmet force—with inadequate provision by all three of the criteria to which I referred. Troops were arriving without personal weapons and without boots. If we are to restructure the command as I have suggested, we must do so in a way that will attract troops from militarily capable nations.
	That of itself will not be enough to attract such support, as some of the preliminary observations made by the representatives of those countries at the UN made clear. There will have to be parallel political development. Even with an expanded and more representative security force, there will be no shortcuts to stability in Iraq. Stability and security will depend on political progress and on the civil administration in Iraq being the responsibility not of the coalition—increasingly seen as occupiers— but of the UN, which would, in my view, enjoy a far greater legitimacy and acceptability.
	For those who are students of such matters, I fancy that the next fortnight in New York would be a most interesting occasion if one could participate, even silently, in all the meetings that will take place, because they will essentially involve that peculiar UN operation of barter and exchange, negotiation, offer and counter-offer. However, any new resolution, as finally agreed, must provide the vital role for the UN promised by both President Bush and the Prime Minister, not just in words, but in substance as well. It must embrace the urgent objective of restoring sovereignty and democratic control to the Iraqi people. It must ensure that the process of transition from the present arrangements comes under the auspices of the UN. We should ensure that the responsibility for economic reconstruction and rebuilding in Iraq is as soon as possible placed with an Iraqi provisional Government, assisted by the UN.
	The deployment of British forces can be justified against such clear objectives. I also want to make it clear that a desire to rescue the deteriorating situation in Iraq, which virtually everyone now recognises, is no endorsement of the action that has given rise to that position. I said at the outset that my scepticism remains undimmed. Analogies in these matters are always deeply dangerous, but let me suggest that the doctor who treats the victim of a serious assault neither endorses nor justifies that assault in so doing.
	I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, whom we are sent here to represent, that Iraq should further deteriorate and that there should be instability in that country, which would inevitably have consequences for the stability of the whole region. We have a moral obligation, but there is also a deeply pragmatic obligation as well.
	Firmly rooting remedial action in the UN is, in my judgment, an acknowledgement of the UN's pre-eminence, for which Liberal Democrat Members at least have consistently argued, and far from being an endorsement of military action, which I still believe was unjustified at the time that it was taken, it is in truth an implied rebuke to all those who sidelined the UN. I have said before—I am flattered that the Foreign Secretary has quoted it from time to time—that the UN is no more or less than the sum of its members. It is not a third party to whom we can contract out our security or, indeed, that of the Iraqi people. It requires our engagement, and if, as we do in the motion, we set out a series of steps that we regard as essential, we have an obligation to recognise that we have to continue to engage, and, if necessary, we have to engage with further resources in the form of troops and—who knows?—perhaps even in the form of financial support.
	When Sergio Vieira de Mello and Fiona Watson, who was one of my former constituents—incidentally, her coffin was draped with the UN flag at her funeral—were both brutally murdered, they were acting for us and in our name, as much as were any of those in uniform who have been so tragically killed.
	The UN is not and never will be a perfect instrument, but it is the best means available now by which to ameliorate the present condition of the Iraqi people and to improve it to the point at which they can resume full responsibility for themselves. That is why I commend the motion to the House.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"supports the vital role played by the United Nations in Iraq as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1500 (2003); pays tribute to the Secretary General's Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello and his colleagues brutally murdered in the terrorist atrocity of 19th August; welcomes the determination of the United Nations Secretary General to remain engaged in Iraq; further welcomes the initiation of discussions on a new UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq, which aims to reaffirm the United Nations' support for the work of the governing council, calls on the governing council to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections, proposes a United Nations-mandated multinational force under existing unified command arrangements and encourages UN Member States and international organisations to help the Iraqi people by providing resources for rehabilitation and reconstruction at next month's conference in Madrid."
	I welcome this debate and the tone in which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) moved the motion. I welcome the spirit of the motion, too. I looked hard to see whether we could accept the motion as stated, and it was only what I described as a little infelicitous drafting here and there, on which I would have been happy to offer prior assistance, that led me to move the alternative. The tone of the debate reflects the fact that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, whatever views people have had about the wisdom or otherwise of the military action, we all have a common interest in securing Iraq's peace and prosperity as quickly as possible.
	The role of the UN has been at the heart of the issue with Iraq for more than a dozen years. During that time, Iraq achieved the unique distinction of having more mandatory Security Council resolutions against it than any other country in the United Nations' history. Its record of defiance in response to the Security Council's demands put Saddam Hussein's regime into a category of its own. That unenviable record led the House to make the decision on 18 March, by a majority of 263, that the only way to deal effectively with that defiance and the threat that the Security Council had already agreed that it posed to international peace and security was through military action.
	This time last year, we were involved with our Security Council partners in an intensive dialogue as to how we could enforce the writ of United Nations resolutions in Iraq. That dialogue became a negotiation, which led on 8 November to the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441. It is worth reminding ourselves of the key elements of that resolution. It declared that Iraq represented a threat to international peace and security, which is a key trigger for the use of chapter VII powers. It gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to bring itself into compliance, and it spelled out how it was to do so in the clearest possible terms. If Iraq failed to meet the conditions, 1441 warned that "serious consequences" would follow. Diplomatic parlance is notoriously ambiguous, but that phrase was understood to have only one meaning—military action. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was understood to be interchangeable with "necessary means" or "necessary measures".
	I do not downplay the significance of the United Nations' subsequent failure to agree on the so-called second resolution in March. Indeed, it was a matter of great personal regret to me. I travelled to New York four times between January and March in an attempt to a secure a consensus on the need to enforce those terms of the resolution. We all worked hard to try to achieve that consensus, but we were unable to do so. Divisions were also apparent in this House in that momentous debate on 18 March. Some took the view that containment was working, or, alongside that, that more time should be granted to the United Nations inspectors. The Government's view was that that would simply play into the hands of a regime that wanted time without end. As I have already mentioned, the House therefore endorsed the Government's position and decided to enforce those "serious consequences".
	In the aftermath of coalition military intervention, the immediate challenge facing the international community is to bring peace and the rule of law to a country that has been brutalised for almost a quarter of a century. Our task is to help the Iraqi people rapidly build a nation from the ashes of Saddam's dictatorship and to do so with the United Nations. In April, at the Hillsborough summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush called on the United Nations to play a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq. It has been doing so ever since. The World Food Programme, with its Iraqi counterparts, got the public distribution system for food rations fully up and running in June. UNICEF and the World Health Organisation have made major contributions to the restoration of health services, which have included the successful containment of the cholera outbreak in the south of the country, maintaining supplies of essential medicines and resuming child vaccination programmes. The United Nations Development Programme has been helping to restore electricity services, and the Government, through the Department for International Development, have been providing very considerable support. DFID has committed £113 million to the United Nations' work in Iraq, alongside other funds in respect of other programmes.
	In all this work, particularly in the south of the country, the work of the civilian agencies has been supported and in some instances made possible by the exceptional work of British troops. I cannot emphasis often enough—I know that I have the approbation of the whole House—the admiration that we all have for the skill, expertise, courage and determination of our troops. It happens that by chance on Saturday I met a group of service personnel who were literally about to leave for Basra. Some were with their families. Tears were being shed. It was striking in the brief conversations that I had what stoicism our troops were showing, and what commitment to the cause and to the highest traditions of the British armed forces.

Tam Dalyell: Endorsing what my right hon. Friend said about the British troops, where great commitment has been shown, is not there a problem that really should be addressed, which is the labelling of many technocrats who formerly were Ba'athists, in that they had to be to get anywhere in their profession? Could not some change be made in the guidelines as to who can help in reconstruction and who cannot? I think particularly of Saddam's Health Minister, Dr. Mubarrak from Sulammiya—a Kurd, incidentally—who was technically, in the view of many people, extremely efficient. All right, he paid lip service to the Ba'ath party, but he was interested in health. Should not such people be brought back in the reconstruction process?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important and constructive point. It is one that has been exercising us as well. The point is how sensitively the process of so-called de-Ba'athification can be undertaken in a way that identifies those people who on any analysis were completely committed Ba'athists, and therefore would represent a threat to any subsequent Government within the country, and those whom my hon. Friend correctly said were Ba'athists because they had to be Ba'athists, in the same way as in the Soviet bloc if someone wanted to be a teacher, an administrator or engineer at any level, they had to be a member of the Communist party.
	Quite a lot of the people who are operating at a senior level were members of the Ba'ath party. When I was in Baghdad on 1 July, I met a woman who had been a senior official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I am quite sure—I am not absolutely certain, but almost certain—that she was involved in the Ba'ath party. People had identified her as someone who was not remotely committed to it. However, she had to be able to follow her career.
	On the gravamen of what my hon. Friend says, he is right. We continue discussions in the coalition provisional authority to ensure that the de-Ba'athification process is handled sensitively and quickly, and that good people who pose no threat to security in Iraq are allowed to continue their work.
	The Government have been committed all the way along to establishing a broad mandate for the UN in post-Saddam Iraq. Thus far, this has been affirmed in two Security Council resolutions. The first, UNSCR 1483, was passed on 22 May.

Anne Campbell: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's remarks about the British commitment to a UN mandate. Does he agree with me that the American reluctance to bring in the UN at an early stage, and the seemingly reluctant acceptance that the UN has an important role to play now, after a period of violence, does not do their cause very much good?

Jack Straw: I do not fully accept my hon. Friend's view. From the very start, the American Government wanted the United Nations to play a vital role. I was present at the discussions at Hillsborough at the beginning of April, when the issue of the vital role was discussed. It was not an issue of words. Everyone recognised, not least President Bush and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that if the UN was to play a "vital role", those words had to be translated into action. In my judgment, they have been, and I was about to say how that has been done. However, I do not deny for a second that we now have to enhance the UN's mandate.
	Resolution 1483, co-sponsored by the United States and the UK, talked about a vital role for the United Nations, and established a framework for the UN's involvement in all significant aspects of Iraq's reconstruction. It lifted most of the UN sanctions against Iraq. A second resolution—resolution 1500—passed on 14 August welcomed the first steps taken by Iraq towards representative government with the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council. It also created the United Nations assistance mission for Iraq, as recommended by the Secretary-General.
	To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), of course there was scepticism about the question of whether the "vital role" was simply warm words or would be followed by action. I have accepted both in the House and outside that mistakes were made, not only in respect of the role of the United Nations but, more significantly, in not fully anticipating the speed with which the Saddam regime would collapse and the security vacuum that would be left. There were also mistakes in the planning for the coalition provisional authority. That said, after the passage of resolution 1483, in late May, June and July, the role of the United Nations on the ground was accelerating and, on any analysis, becoming vital.
	That was made clear in the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council on 17 July. He said that the
	"UN can begin to assist the Iraqi people...in making a difference . . . and in helping to pave the way of the restoration of sovereignty to democratic Iraqi institutions."
	Sergio Vieira de Mello referred to the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council on 13 July as a "defining moment" for Iraq,
	"moving it back where it rightfully belongs: at peace with itself and as a full participant in the community of nations."
	As I told the House on Monday, the fact that the terrorists decided to target the Secretary-General's special representative and other United Nations staff at the UN's headquarters, the Canal hotel in Baghdad, speaks volumes about the positive impact that the United Nations was having through its involvement in the political process and its role in reconstruction. It had been helping to establish the conditions for an orderly transition in Iraq, and its personnel became the target of those who sought to plunge the country into chaos. It was precisely because those terrorists could see the difference that the UN was making that they decided to target it.

Menzies Campbell: I do not demur from what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the last moment or two, but another consideration is the fact that the UN was a pretty soft target. The security arrangements for its headquarters were a long way below what was desirable.

Jack Straw: I was just about to say that in the wake of the appalling events on 19 August, the United Nations obviously had to scale back its presence in Iraq considerably. I have since spoken to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on a number of occasions, and assured him that we are ready to offer further advice and assistance to help to guarantee the security of United Nations facilities and personnel. However, may I also tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the United Nations had to make its own decisions about security? There was security around the Canal hotel, but the UN—rightly, in my view—judged that it should be separate from the coalition forces and the secure area within Baghdad. It also judged that in the past it had never been a target, so it was fair for it to assume, even in the more difficult security climate, that it was not going to be a target in future. Obviously, that has to be reassessed, but I say to him from my knowledge that no culpability lies with the security services of either the United Nations or the coalition. The culpability for that terrorist attack lies solely with the terrorists.

Edward Garnier: May I infer from the Foreign Secretary's last remark to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that the United Nations was offered security cover at the Canal hotel by the United States, but thought it proper to refuse it?

Jack Straw: The situation is more complicated than that. The United Nations had security cover and the issue is the level of cover. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me, I am afraid that I shall not go into detail about the confidential discussions that took place between the UN and the coalition.

Alex Salmond: The Foreign Secretary said that he thought that the United Nations wanted to be separate from the coalition forces. Might that be the case because it wanted to see a distinction between the United Nations operation and that of the coalition forces, which had been engaged in military action—a distinction between combatant forces and peacekeeping forces? If he acknowledges that distinction, would it not be unwise to blur it by trying to incorporate other countries into an existing command structure instead of setting up a new command structure that would not be regarded as partial and combatant?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, of course, it was in the mind of the United Nations that it was distinct from coalition forces and wanted to reinforce that distinction by locating itself in a different place in Baghdad. Indeed, it had occupied the same headquarters since the Gulf war. I shall deal in a moment with the issue of unified command, but I say now that nobody in the Security Council is arguing for blue-helmeted troops under the command of a UN Secretary-General-appointed commander. Everyone accepts that there has to be a multinational force, but under a unified command, and that that unified commander has to be from the United States, for reasons that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife readily acknowledged. That is also an element of the resolution.
	The truth that we now know, but did not know before 19 August, is that everybody who is working for peace in Iraq—the United Nations, coalition forces, members of the governing council and ordinary Iraqis—can be targeted by such terrorists, who simply want, in a nihilistic way, to blow up processes that will lead to peace and security. We must take account of that and assist the Iraqis in getting on top of terrorism, just as, in a much more limited way, we have had to do ourselves.

Simon Thomas: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I need to make progress, as this is a very short debate and others wish to speak.
	As I have said, the attack on the UN headquarters was a terrible reminder that all nations share a common interest in ensuring a successful transition in Iraq and have none in allowing the terrorists to succeed. For that reason, over the past few weeks, I have been working closely with United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and my colleagues in the European Union and the Security Council to strengthen the UN's mandate and the joint efforts of the international community in Iraq.
	Let me set out the key elements in the draft that is now under discussion. It reaffirms the United Nations' support for the work of the Governing Council and calls on the council—this is a very important point—to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and the holding of democratic elections. The timetable would be provided in co-operation with both the CPA and the United Nations. It would reinforce to the Iraqi people our determination to move along the path towards democratic government run by Iraqis in a sovereign Iraq. Giving that sense of progress and hope about the fact that the coalition is in the country as an occupying power only temporarily is of profound psychological importance in Iraq. It will give the international community more certainty about the direction that is being pursued in Iraq. The fact of the discussions has already tended to assist the international climate in which the Iraqi Governing Council is operating. I was pleased to learn this morning that at a meeting in Cairo yesterday, the Arab League passed a resolution in which it invited the Iraqi Governing Council to take up its full seat at the league until a representative of a full Iraqi Government could take over. Given how standoffish the Arab League and neighbouring states had been before, that is a very important change.

Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State says that he wants to give the Iraqi people the impression that the occupying forces will be there only temporarily. Will he give an indication of how long they are going to be there? Will it be two years, three years, five years, or 10 years? If he cannot do that, will he give an indication of when he can give an indication?

Jack Straw: The purpose of inviting the governing council to propose a timescale is to let the most representative body of the Iraqi people make those proposals, not to have them imposed by others, including the United Kingdom. We do not want to stay, nor will we stay, in Iraq for a moment longer than is necessary. We will ensure that a handover of sovereignty takes place as quickly as possible. Given the uncertainty of the situation, I cannot give my hon. Friend exact dates as to when that will happen, but I can promise him that we are committed to doing so as quickly as is safe.
	The text highlights the UN's role in supporting the constitutional processes in Iraq, drawing on its extensive expertise in this area. The aim is for the UN to be heavily involved in preparing the electoral register and other electoral processes.
	The draft proposes a UN-mandated international force under existing unified command arrangements; that should facilitate the provision of troops by other countries that have so far felt unable to make contributions.
	Finally, the text refers to next month's donors conference in Madrid.

Michael Ancram: In answer to some comments that have been made about the commitment of the United States to the involvement of the United Nations, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the draft text to which he refers was in fact proposed and tabled by the United States?

Jack Straw: Indeed. This is a United States proposal, which is constructive and will no doubt be improved during discussions.
	In summary, if a resolution along the lines of the draft is accepted, that will send a strong signal to those forces in Iraq who would deny the Iraqi people a peaceful and prosperous future. It will tell them that the international community's commitment to the establishment of representative government in Iraq was irrevocable and that their efforts to block Iraq's return to the international community of nations were doomed to failure.
	The build-up to military action in March was, sadly, characterised by serious divisions in the international community. By contrast, the period since the fall of Saddam has been characterised by growing consensus that whatever those previous disagreements, we all have a common interest in Iraq's future stability and prosperity and in the role of the United Nations in achieving that. Constructive discussions on the draft have been held over the past 10 days in New York and via direct contact between Foreign Ministers of Security Council members. This Saturday, at the invitation of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, I shall travel to Geneva for a meeting with him and my four colleague Foreign Ministers from the permanent membership of the Security Council to discuss both the draft in more detail and the wider issues of United Nations involvement in Iraq. I look forward to that meeting, and I shall of course report the outcome to the House.
	Since the inception of the United Nations, no country has been more committed to it than the United Kingdom. No country has made a greater effort than the United Kingdom to ensuring that the UN is a central means by which the international community deals with the threat from Saddam's regime and the country's rehabilitation. We were the co-sponsor of three UN resolutions in respect of Iraq that have been passed in the past 10 months, and in the coming days we shall strive to secure a fourth.
	The draft resolution that is under discussion is aimed at cementing the UN's presence in Iraq, enhancing Iraq's security and bringing forward the day when the Iraqi people can take full control of their own destiny. I urge the House to accept the amendment.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day on the motions on Local Government Finance (England).
	On the motion on the Preserved Rights grant, the Ayes were 389, the Noes were 1, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the motion on the Delayed Discharges grant, the Ayes were 255, the Noes were 40, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the motion on the Social Services (High Performers No. 2) grant, the Ayes were 387, the Noes were 1, so the motion was agreed to.

Role of the United Nations in Iraq

Question again proposed.

Michael Ancram: The debate on Iraq and the United Nations takes place at a significant time. Unlike some of the discussions that we have held in past few days, there will be little difference between us. The fact that the subject of Iraq has been raised on the Floor of the House for the third consecutive day shows the concern about the current position that is shared by hon. Members of all parties.
	The concern is not new to me; I encountered it among Iraqis when I visited Baghdad on 23 July. The other day, the Secretary of State criticised me for raising some concerns and criticisms. However, they do not originate with me but with people to whom I talked in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. They mentioned them because they believed that it was important that we understood them.
	What is happening—to be more accurate, what is not happening in Iraq—is unfair to the Iraqis, who are unsurprisingly growing resentful, and to our armed forces who, through no fault of theirs, sometimes have to face the backlash of the resentment. Our servicemen and women are doing a remarkable job in difficult circumstances and I wish to pay tribute to them. I wish the additional troops who are being deployed to Iraq today every success in their mission. However, we owe them not only moral support but a clear and active civil programme of restoring the basic amenities of water, power and working sewers to the provinces under our control. That will relieve pressure from not only the Iraqis but our armed forces. Government uncertainty about the reconstruction programme helps neither party.
	Since our debate on 24 September last year, I have argued that the involvement of the international community through the United Nations is essential to rebuilding Iraq. A little more than a week ago, the United Kingdom took over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council; the United States takes on the role next month. We are therefore at a critical moment, when together we can promote a positive role for the United Nations. The United States is sometimes portrayed as the obstacle to United Nations involvement, yet President Bush has made it clear that deeper United Nations involvement and the further internationalisation of the coalition in Iraq is essential for the prosperity and security of the region. As I pointed out earlier, the United States tabled the text of the draft resolution. I urge all nations on the United Nations Security Council, especially the permanent members, who have sometimes been the problem rather than the solution, to work constructively towards passing the resolution.
	However, the resolution must not be allowed to complicate the security situation in Iraq. It is clear that, in military terms, a single chain of command and control must operate in that country. The specific circumstances and the disparity in troop numbers between the participating nations mean that it must logically be American-led. To suggest otherwise defies reality and common sense and would be a recipe for confusion. That is why I support the Government amendment.
	The draft resolution, which the Security Council is currently considering,
	"authorizes a multinational force, under unified command".
	There is currently a multinational force, under unified command, in Iraq; the resolution adds the authorisation of the United Nations. That is the right way to proceed and we support that.

Simon Thomas: What should be the deciding body on any withdrawal of military force from Iraq? Who should decide when the time is right—America, as head of the unified control that the right hon. Gentleman outlined, or the United Nations? The final arbiter of when military force withdraws is important for whether the Iraqis perceive the forces as occupying or bringing them peace and justice.

Michael Ancram: We are talking about practical realities, and about the security of Iraq. Those who are best able to judge the security situation are those who are responsible for securing it in the first place—the armed forces, not the United Nations. It is therefore inevitable that the decision will be taken by the armed forces in consultation with the various participating nations, which is how the matter should be decided. I shall give another example shortly, which will show that that where we should direct our attention.

Alex Salmond: The doctrine that decisions on withdrawal from—or, for that matter, entry into—a theatre of combat are made by the armed forces is extraordinary. Such decisions are political decisions made by whoever is authorising the armed forces. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether withdrawal would be authorised by the American command—presumably, the President of the United States—or by the United Nations. If the unified command is reporting to the United Nations, surely it should be the United Nations that makes the decision.

Michael Ancram: I do not know how much knowledge the hon. Gentleman has of military matters, but I would say to him that those in charge of security are best placed to decide when changes can be made to security operations. Those who have been responsible for providing the security in the first place should properly take the final decisions on whether the situation in Iraq is secure enough for withdrawal to take place. I shall return to the issue later, but a good example of the principle in operation is to be found in Afghanistan, where decisions on security are taken by the armed forces and the decisions on humanitarian and political questions are taken by the United Nations. That relationship is working well, and it is one that we should look at closely in relation to Iraq.
	The formal United Nations involvement should not be military. The passing of the current draft resolution will create a mandate for the further involvement of other nations in the security of Iraq, which would be welcome. In particular, it could open the door to India's military involvement. Furthermore, I understand from conversations that I have had that some of the Gulf states might be able to provide Arab forces to help in this endeavour, which would be an important extension of the multinational nature of the force that is in place.
	The endeavour should not be a UN peacekeeping force in the sense that we understand it at present, however. Kofi Annan has ruled out a blue helmet—or, indeed, a blue beret—operation for good reasons, not least because it will not be a traditional peacekeeping operation of the kind in which the United Nations is involved elsewhere. At the moment, it is a counter-insurgency mission, which is not, and should not be, the role of the United Nations. For that reason, I believe that the definition set out in the draft resolution text is the correct one.
	In Afghanistan, the United Nations has a significant role to play on the political and humanitarian front, in co-ordination with NATO and the American forces on the security front. It achieves its purpose without seeking to exert control over the military operation. The military, for its part, welcomes the work of the UN, which allows it to concentrate on its security responsibilities. I saw this in action when I visited Afghanistan in July. I talked to the United States and United Kingdom military commanders there, and to Lakhdar Brahimi of the United Nations. There was a clear and important demarcation of responsibilities, which worked well. That was before NATO took over the command of ISAF, which I believe will help still further by creating greater continuity on the security side.
	In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, one of the priorities is to move as swiftly as possible to a democratically elected indigenous Administration. The military coalition accepts its role in training local security forces to provide security across the country, without which a successful election would be unlikely to be held. The United Nations has the vital responsibility of helping to carry out sensitive work on voter registration and other legal technicalities, and advising on constitutional options. Afghanistan provides an example of how that relationship is working successfully on the ground, and it is just such a relationship that is envisaged in the United Nations draft resolution. It is a model that could usefully be adapted and adopted for Iraq.
	If, however, the United Nations is to play a significant role in delivering a bright future for Iraq, two things are needed immediately: first, as far as possible its security must be assured; and, secondly, civilian reconstruction must be stepped up and the contracts to do so must be in place. After the tragic death of Sergio Vieira de Mello and other United Nations personnel, not least our own Fiona Watson, in the bombing of the United Nations building, the question of United Nations security is paramount. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and I do not wish to know about the private and secret discussions that took place. However, when I was in Baghdad, the United Nations was beginning to be aware of a threat and was considering discontinuing its flights into Baghdad airport, because there had been several incidents of missile lock-ons. It was beginning to see that there was a threat, and I still regret that, for the reasons the Foreign Secretary stated, it had kept itself outside the secure area on the east side of the river where the security provided by the security forces was not available.

Edward Garnier: My right hon. Friend may not want to know what discussions the Foreign Secretary had with his counterparts, which are necessarily confidential, but we are entitled to comment that the safety and overall security of United Nations' personnel can be achieved effectively and practically only with the assistance of United States' armed forces guarding its premises. That may be politically inconvenient and diplomatically uncomfortable, but if we are to avoid tragedies such as those that took place in August, as members of the United Nations we should swallow our pride and allow those who have the means to help to protect us.

Michael Ancram: I agree in principle with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but there was another dimension: the United Nations was in its old building, which was on the east side of the river. That was not part of the secured area in Baghdad. That was its decision. It was not so much that it required American assistance in protecting its premises. I would have preferred it if its premises had been within the secure area, because that would have lessened the likelihood of what happened. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I drove past the United Nations building and, having in my time in Northern Ireland learned that terrorists look for soft, rather than hard, targets, I wondered whether the United Nations was not presenting itself as a soft target and therefore a temptation to terrorists.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to labour the point, because it is not central to the debate, but surely there is not much difference between siting premises in an insecure area, and having them within a secure area but refusing to accept the protection of security forces.

Michael Ancram: Ideally—I hope this will happen now—there should be a United Nations presence, but within the secured area, where it can take advantage of the fact that it will be a harder target than in the unsecured area. The United Nations must be brought to understand that if it is to succeed in Iraq, it must accept the security umbrella of what I hope will be reinforced coalition military protection.
	United Nations security will also be enhanced by greater co-operation from the Iraqi people themselves. I say again that that is more likely to be forthcoming if the civilian programme of reconstruction, particularly of basic amenities, progresses apace. The question we must ask is, will it be forthcoming? After three days, I have not yet heard anything concrete from the Government to suggest that there is a clear, structured and timetabled plan for physical reconstruction. As it is five months since the war ended, that is simply not good enough.
	I want to make it clear that I have nothing but praise for the performance of our troops, who have done much to improve the lives of people in Iraq, not least building a new hospital in Basra. However, our troops are not there to act as surrogate civilian contractors, and I was surprised to hear the Foreign Secretary on BBC radio yesterday apparently suggesting that they were. That would be a travesty of their role and of their responsibilities.
	I repeat that the dearth of civilian contracts is not a complaint raised by me but one that was raised with me not only by Iraqis, but also by senior British military sources when I was there. It is difficult, in the absence of a clear and stated programme and schedule of work, to avoid the impression that the Government are confused about how that programme will develop. We have been left asking whether there was a post-war plan, let alone what has been described as an exit strategy, but which I like to think of as a completion strategy.
	In June this year the erstwhile Secretary of State for International Development admitted that
	"the preparations for post-conflict were poor and we have got the chaos and suffering that we have got now".
	Those are the words of the person who had been responsible for producing a plan, and that began to fill me with suspicion that a plan might not have been made.
	The present Secretary of State, Lady Amos, admitted
	"we would all say there are things we did not get right with respect to the planning and administration"
	of the post-war regime.
	On Monday, I asked the Foreign Secretary about reconstruction contracts. I now ask him again: how many civilian construction contracts were in place when I visited Iraq on 24 July? How many contracts are now in place? How many are in preparation, and how long is the period between project identification and the start of the work? Those are questions that were put to me, and we have still not had answers to them. I hope that we may have answers today.
	A strong civilian programme of reconstruction will make an enormous contribution to stability on the streets, and will create a stronger environment within which the UN can play the important role that is increasingly open to it in Iraq. The same would be achieved by a demonstration by the Government that there is a strategy for reconstruction, for returning power to the Iraqi people as soon as possible, and—on completion of those tasks—for getting out. That would have a powerful effect on sceptical people in Iraq, and would also enhance stability on the ground.
	Of course the most urgent problem at the moment is the rising wave of terrorism and insurgency. The priority must be to root that out and eliminate it. The Conservatives welcome the deployment of additional troops, although the pressure of overstretch in our armed forces cannot be ignored. We also welcome the programme of retraining and recommissioning Iraqi military and police forces. I believe that their role in combating both terrorism and lawlessness will be crucial. Similar training carried out in Afghanistan has given us some indications of how that can work effectively.
	If reconstruction, political development and the satisfactory provision of humanitarian aid are to be achieved, a secure environment must be achieved and maintained. I have no doubt that the UN can play an effective and vital role in such an environment.
	I believe that a new chapter is opening in Iraq. I believe that what we did in the war was right. What we must not do now is squander the peace for lack of political direction or will. There are positive signs, which must offer hope.
	On Sunday President Bush demonstrated a clear determination to make reconstruction work, and I hope that the Government here will do the same. Through the work that he did in Baghdad, Sergio Vieira de Mello showed that the UN can perform a vital role. We owe it to him, and to all the others who have died in the service of securing and building a better future for the people of Iraq, to get the peace right and to give them back their country, free of tyranny and free of the reign of fear. To do that, the Government must show more direction than they have hitherto, and simply get on with the job.

George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject in the House, having had the opportunity to do so elsewhere.
	Like the Foreign Secretary, I thought the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) reasonable and sensible, as most of his speeches are. I believe he genuinely accepts that the Government are taking on board most of his views. Others, however, do not seem to accept that. They do not seem to be listening to what the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Minister of State, Department for International Development are saying. I am reminded of the old phrase "none so deaf as those that will not hear". I think that some Members, and some people outside, do not want to hear of the progress that is being made.
	The most remarkable progress being made, in the circumstances, is the development of political pluralism. We have a governing council, and we now have a Cabinet with, at last, a Foreign Minister who speaks on behalf of Iraq. I have heard him on the radio. He is not one of Saddam Hussein's puppets. That is tremendous. The governing council represents people who used to be exiles, and people who stayed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the face of great difficulties—people of all creeds and backgrounds. But of course, we have to make progress, and as the Foreign Secretary rightly said, the United Nations has a vital role in preparing for, supervising and supporting the elections. I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that the Iraqi governing council will work out the timetable for those elections and for the transition to democracy. That seems right, and it will of course need the support of the coalition, at least in terms of security. So progress is being made on democratic development as well.
	The resolution gives rise to the question of the command structure, and in that regard I again agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) yet again made a fool of himself in his flat-footed way. He believes that everything is black and white. The shadow Foreign Secretary will remember the old days of cowboy and Indian films, in which the cowboys always appeared in white and the baddies always appeared in black, just so that people could identify them. That is the simple world of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
	When it became clear yesterday that everyone but the hon. Gentleman agreed that the force will not be blue-helmeted—even Kofi Annan says that the force will be not a UN one but a multinational one—the rug was pulled from under his argument. When I asked him who, other than the Americans, could lead such a multi-national force—I suggested that perhaps the Lithuanians or the Poles could—he had no answer. It is a pity that innate anti-Americanism suffuses the views of certain Members, who are to be found not only on the Opposition Benches—there are one or two on the Labour Benches as well, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) being one of them.

Alex Salmond: Given the right hon. Gentleman's view of the world, I am sure that he always has a white hat on. Some 24 hours after yesterday's debate, even he should have stumbled across the fact that the question is not whether there is a unified command structure, but to whom it reports. If he can, will he tell us now whether he thinks that a unified command structure—whichever the lead country—will report to the White House or to the Security Council? If he can answer that question he will, at last, rise in my estimation.

George Foulkes: Like many of the critics, when the hon. Gentleman is defeated on one matter, he changes the subject. He has moved the goalposts: yesterday, he was talking about the military command structure, and it is of course sensible that the US lead that. Remember that anything that the hon. Gentleman says must be put in the context of his comments on the liberation of Kosovo, when he described the Government's action as an unpardonable folly. What he said was an unpardonable folly, as he will live to realise.

Alex Salmond: Whom will the unified command structure report to: the White House or the United Nations Security Council? That is the question—can we now have an answer?

George Foulkes: The situation is much more complicated than that. It is a matter for the Government to answer, and I am sure that the able Minister, who is doing the job that I used to do a few years ago, will have a reply.

Menzies Campbell: rose—

George Foulkes: I shall continue, as a lot of people want to get in. On reconstruction, again, there are none so deaf as those that do not want to hear. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary made a statement on reconstruction—about hospitals, schools and everything that is improving. The shadow Foreign Secretary wants a neat plan to be drawn up. That is the latest soundbite that he has come up with—it is the Conservatives who are the original spinners. I must disagree with his proposal because any plan needs to be flexible. It must take account of the security situation, and of the sabotage of the oil pipelines and water supply. Such incidents have set back some of the existing plans and the progress that needs to be made.
	People criticise the security forces for being unable to deal with some of the atrocities that have taken place. They ask how such things can happen. Of course they can happen in a country with Iraq's history. They even happen—tragically, as we saw yesterday—in Israel, a country with the most sophisticated intelligence system and a strong security and defence system. Israel could not guard against suicide bombers. How can we expect the embryonic state of Iraq to do so?

Michael Ancram: This is not an academic question, but one that is real for people in Iraq. Somebody put it to me in this way: how can countries that put men on the moon 30 years ago not turn the lights back on in Baghdad and Basra in four months? All people are asking is to be told whether there is a plan. I have asked about something even more fundamental, the contracts for reconstruction that will put the lights back on Baghdad and Basra. That is what people want to know and we in this House must answer.

George Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman will get an answer; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give it in his reply. Fortunately, when the Americans were putting men on the moon, they did not have terrorists and Saddam Hussein supporters sabotaging their efforts. I welcome the conversion of the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Tories to involving the United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Food Programme and all the agencies that are doing a good job in the reconstruction of Iraq. It was the Tories who took Britain out of UNESCO—not an indication of co-operation—and it needed a Labour Government to bring Britain back into it. We need no lectures on supporting the UN from the Conservatives.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that if a plan and timetable were made available, it would be an invitation to terrorists to derail that plan?

George Foulkes: I do not need to add to that extremely good point.
	We have been asked why the French, Germans and Russians should now help in reconstruction. I can understand that they do not want to support any kind of resolution that retrospectively approves the action taken by the coalition; that is logical. But if they are really concerned about the interests of the people of Iraq, they must want to help reconstruct that ravaged country following the decades of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Surely any country with concern about poor, under-privileged and disadvantaged people will want to do that and I hope that they will take account of that.
	Like many hon. Members, my attention has been diverted from some of the main issues by the Hutton inquiry. I wish to put on record here, as I have done elsewhere, that most of my colleagues and I voted for action in Iraq not on the basis of one paragraph in one dossier. The 45 minutes claim appeared in only two out of thousands of parliamentary questions. I invite the critics to go back to the debates on Iraq and see how many times that matter was mentioned; it was not put forward as the reason for action. There was a range of other things and not just intelligence information: the continual flouting of UN resolutions by Saddam Hussein, the invasions of Kuwait and Iran and the killings and torture. Regime change was not the legal justification for action, but it is a very desirable outcome of it.

Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is correct of course in what he says about the 45 minutes claim in its specifics, but surely even he—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that the motion deals with the role of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq rather than the question of the 45 minutes.

Simon Thomas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall bear that in mind. I wanted to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a wider point, which I hoped would be in order—that the resignation speech of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the previous Foreign Secretary, absolutely demolished the case for war. Surely the right hon. Gentleman took that into account and we should—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must bring hon. Members back to the wording of the motion before the House.

George Foulkes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I say that the resignation speeches would have been treated with greater respect if they had been made a little earlier?
	As to the decision to get rid of the dictator, I would like to quote an e-mail. E-mails are suddenly becoming dangerous things, but I shall quote one of many that I received in support of what I have said. It says as a postscript at the end:
	"I notice that the media is not talking about Dr. Kelly's view that regime change was the only answer in Iraq."
	That appeared in his sister's testimony to the Hutton inquiry, but as you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are now talking about the future.
	Some of the critics ask where the weapons of mass destruction are—[Interruption.] They are doing it again. That implies that Saddam Hussein never had any weapons of mass destruction. That is the logic of what they say. Well, what did he use to invade Kuwait and Iran? With what did he kill the hundreds of thousands of people, many at Halabja? Why did he turn out the weapons inspectors in 1998 and refuse to let them back in? What did he have to hide? Saddam Hussein was very good at hiding weapons, particularly chemical and biological weapons, which are not difficult to hide.
	In conclusion, today's debate is welcome and has been constructive, but I was not sure about the purpose of yesterday's debate. It seemed to me a desperate attempt by the official Opposition to show that they were indeed the official Opposition and would not be upstaged by the Liberal Democrats.
	I finish by dealing with another criticism of those who supported the Government's action—that Saddam Hussein was only one dictator and that there were others around the world. I am just as concerned about Mugabe and about the regime in Burma. I have not heard much from Opposition Members about Burma or much support for Aung San Suu Kyi—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not hear anything about Burma, because the motion before the House is about the reconstruction of Iraq.

George Foulkes: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the reconstruction of Iraq would not have been possible unless we had got rid of Saddam Hussein. I am proud to be one of those who voted in favour of the action that did get rid of him.

Edward Garnier: I was amused to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I have heard a lot of him on the radio and seen him on television throughout much of the summer, and he has loyally advanced the Government's cause. I rather suspect, however, that he picked up the wrong notes when he came to today's debate. He picked up the "Let's support Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and others in the frame under the Hutton inquiry" notes, rather than the notes that he should have made and thought about for today's debate on the Liberal Democrat motion and the Government's amendment. But there we are: he is an enjoyable Member of the House and we all listen to him with some amusement.
	I have the greatest respect for the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for the manner in which he advanced his case this afternoon and for the clever way in which he said that this afternoon's debate should not descend into party-political argument. That makes it hugely impolite to be rude about the Liberal Democrat motion. I shall not be impolite, but I will have one or two things to say about it.
	The motion seeks to portray the Liberal Democrats as concerned about Iraq and its future. I have no doubt that they are, but they leave reality behind when it comes to the implementation of those concerns on the ground. It is unreal to expect that the process of political transition, including the restoration of sovereignty and democratic control to the Iraqi people, can be achieved under the auspices of the UN. It is unreal to demand that the entire responsibility for the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq should be under an Iraqi provisional Government, with or without the assistance of the United Nations, and it is unreal to replace existing security arrangements with a multinational force under a unified command obliged—I stress the word "obliged", which appears in the motion—to report to the Security Council.
	I accept that the Liberal Democrats—at least, most of them—did not vote for the US-UK military operation earlier this year that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein—

Jenny Tonge: None of us did.

Edward Garnier: Well at least they were consistent. I voted for the Government on that occasion, but I shall not now rehearse the arguments for and against the proposal to take military action, both because it has taken place and cannot be undone and because the facts that we now have to deal with—as those responsible for holding the Government to account—are somewhat different and demand different answers.
	It is true to say that the UK's influence in the Security Council and the General Assembly has always been high, even if not always acceptable to every member of it. We are now in a position to exert even greater influence than before, because we are to assume the presidency of the Security Council this month. We are helped by that and by having high calibre professional public servants posted to our delegation in New York. I am reminded that earlier this year, just before the war started, I was part of an all-party Anglo-American parliamentary group delegation to the UN, where I met Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the then UN ambassador, who is now—I am happy to say—posted to our delegation in Baghdad as the Government's special representative. He represents exactly the high level of professional assistance that Governments of all colours have been able to rely on. It was on that occasion also that I was fortunate enough to meet again Fiona Watson, whom I knew from when she worked in the Library. It was clear when I met her in February that she was full of enthusiasm for the work that she was doing as a public servant for the United Nations. It is all the more regrettable that such a star was snuffed out in August this year. It is therefore with some sadness that I take part in this debate, as well as with some happy memories, because it reminds me of that valuable and wonderful person.
	It is also fair to say that our influence in the United Nations has been high historically because we have had the political and diplomatic will to ensure that our national interests are advanced and protected on the world stage, either by ourselves, as for example in the Falkland Islands, or with allies, as in the two Gulf wars. In this Gulf war, we were of course in a much smaller alliance, but that does not mean that our participation in a military operation was entirely selfish. Indeed, there is a powerful argument for saying that what we did with the US this year is what the United Nations should have done—no doubt through the agency of countries such as our own with the military capacity to perform the task—four, five or six years ago.
	It has been said that we have no business becoming involved in Iraq, certainly without the sanction of a Security Council resolution specifically mandating military intervention. Some also argue that everything should be done under the auspices of the United Nations. I disagree. It is not the duty of this Government, or any Government of the United Kingdom, to export the diplomatic or military implementation of our foreign policy to other bodies, no matter how much those other bodies deserve our respect. The United Nations cannot achieve post-conflict success in Iraq, as the Liberal Democrats want, because it does not have the resources, the administration or the civilian and military personnel to do what the motion requires of it.
	It is a truism that the UN works best—that it perhaps can only work at all—when the Security Council is united. In areas where the national interests of its membership do not coincide—as has been the case with Iraq before, during and after the military operation—it is foolish to expect anything much of value to flow from demands that the UN behave as though matters have been agreed when, in fact, they have not.
	I agree with view of Edward Mortimer, the UN Secretary General's director of communications, as expressed in the July issue of "World Today". He said that the UN was
	"a mechanism for mobilising joint action by states and peoples towards agreed goals."
	Merely adding the initials "UN" to any resolution, idea or early-day motion solves nothing.
	Having got that off my chest, I must say that I do not believe that the success of the UN in Iraq—or anywhere else—should be measured only in terms of its relationship with the US, and in particular with the present Administration of President George Bush. Clearly, the UN's effectiveness will be governed to a large extent by its relationship with its most powerful member. However, I deprecate the ritualistic denigration of the US Government and their officials as though that were a well argued and well thought-out position that advanced the cause of peace and prosperity in Iraq.
	The US is not beyond criticism, of course, but its overall record in this matter is worthy of more than begrudging recognition. Praise is due to a country, and a people, that has done and prevented what the UN should have done and prevented some time ago. I for one am happy that the Government recognise that our strategic interests are well served by a close alliance with the US. It is worth remembering that the US has spent more in treasure and human lives on trying to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the problems in Iraq than any other UN member. I say that even though from time to time we have had fundamental disagreements with the US on matters not just of detail but of wider policy.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I, among others, spent some time in Basra earlier this year, and have seen the Iraqi people's response to our forces. Does he agree that a ritualistic hatred of the US is stirred up in some Arab nations? Does he also agree that one way to undermine that ritualistic dislike is to give the UN a broader role, so that other Muslim and Arab countries can play a part in the peace-making process in Iraq?

Edward Garnier: I am not sure that being rude about the US encourages Arab nations to assist in the current problems that we seek to solve. The hon. Gentleman is right: he and I did go to the British sector in southern Iraq, but I did not conclude from what I learned there that it was sensible to denigrate—ritualistically or otherwise—the activities of the US in Baghdad and northern Iraq. The US is doing a tremendously difficult job in tremendously difficult circumstances. Some will say that that serves them right for going there, but I do not think that that is a very helpful attitude. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant by his intervention, but I fear that many outside the House, if not within it, fall into the trap of believing that being rude about the US is enough to salve their consciences when it comes to the problems faced by the Iraqi people.
	I am not against what the UN is doing, or what it seeks to achieve, but we must recognise its practical limitations. By all means let us try to achieve a sensible Security Council resolution, especially if that sets out a timetable for drafting a new constitution and for elections, and if it recognises that the armed forces present in Iraq must be under the overall military command of the US, even though troops and civilian assistance from other interested countries would be welcome. However, all our efforts will be severely inhibited, and might even come to nought, if we cannot rebuild the civilian economy quickly. Only when the economy starts working will we see an end to political unrest.

Ann Clwyd: I was last in Iraq in June and I hope to return in a few days' time.
	Yesterday, I held an interesting meeting with someone whom some hon. Members may have read—the internet diarist, the Baghdad blogger. He began his diary in the middle of last year, before the war started, and continued throughout the war, apart from one point when he was disrupted. He is an ordinary Iraqi who has lived there for quite a long time. Anyone who wants to know what everyday life in Iraq is like at present should look him up on the internet. I cannot believe some of the things that I read in the papers compared with what I saw when I was there in June; nor can I believe the general gloom that pervades many of the reports or that the whole of Iraq is in chaos—it is not. Many honourable colleagues have made that point strongly today.
	I agree with those who have said that we need a publicly stated, long-term commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq. The success of such a project will be seen in security, infrastructure and civil society. One of the mistakes that we, or others, made in places such as Afghanistan was to raise expectations and walk away. We must never do that again and certainly not in Iraq, where, on so many occasions, the Kurds, the Shi'a and other groups were left dangling at the end of a string—literally—because of the repercussions taken by the regime against people who rose up after encouragement from the Americans and others.
	I want to talk about Sergio Vieira de Mello for a moment. He was the epitome of the UN. I saw him working in East Timor where he made a magnificent job of restoring that country to democracy. It is tragic that his hand will not be seen in the evolving future of Iraq. I worked with him on the protection of graves in Afghanistan and, at my invitation, he came to the House to speak just after his appointment as head of the human rights division.
	I also mention Ayatollah Hakim. After so many years of exile, it is tragic that a moderate Shi'a leader should come back to his country and be killed. His was a voice of moderation. I met him once, and I am sorry about what happened to him and to the many others who have died in similar attacks.
	There is an urgent need for the Coalition Provisional Authority to improve security in the country. Failure to do so will create problems for all the authority's other policy goals and objectives. The lack of order can be seen in targeted assassinations, the destruction of the infrastructure and the loss of civilian and military life. If the CPA is to regain control of security in Iraq, it must work with the Iraqi population, the vast majority of whom welcomed the end of the dictatorship. Laudable though the policy of de-Ba'athification is, it should be applied with greater flexibility. No one can be better at sorting out the most prominent Ba'athists than the Iraqis themselves.
	One of the first CPA meetings that I attended in June was between some of the women of Iraq and Ambassador Bremer. As I was waiting to go into the room I could hear people inside shouting at one another. Afterwards, I found out that they were denouncing the Ba'athists who were present, which is why the people of Iraq are best equipped to decide who should be in and who should be out.
	As I said on Monday, the disbanding of the former Iraqi army before new structures were in place shows how rigid cleansing could create problems in the future. By discarding all members of the former armed forces, the CPA is losing local knowledge that could help in security matters and is creating potential recruits for those who want to destabilise the new Iraq. That CPA policy should be reconsidered immediately.
	On Monday, I mentioned a general who is the brother of an Iraqi friend of mine who lives in Wales. The general told his brother that he could get between 50 and 100 senior officers to act as liaison between the coalition and the Iraqi people. He had sent a message to Ambassador Bremer, but had not received a reply. He also said that, every morning at 5 o'clock, he joins a queue of ex-army people of all ranks waiting to be paid. There are sometimes thousands of them standing out on the streets in the heat, waiting to get their money. Day after day, most of them come away with no money in their hands. There is no sense at all in getting rid of the army and not paying them the money that they are owed and not ensuring that they understand what is happening to their pensions. The general said that the queue was extremely demeaning because those involved are not even allowed to have refreshments, as the vendors are not allowed to walk down the queue. People of all ranks are standing there, which is, again, a considerable recipe for disaster.
	An army has been disbanded with all its skills and weaponry, but there is surprise when people are shot. At one time, $500 a head was being offered in Baghdad for shooting at American soldiers. If people have no money in their pockets and do not know how they will feed their families, not many of them would turn down that offer, I am afraid. That is the reality, and it is ridiculous that that situation has been allowed to continue.
	Last night, coalition forces—the Americans—burst into the house of the very general whom I mentioned on Monday, and all his family and his house were searched. I found it a curious coincidence that I mentioned that man on Monday and that his house was attacked last night. He is not the only one.
	I do not know what the level of intelligence is, but I am sometimes quite suspicious of it when I hear some of these stories. During the holidays, I was contacted by a person in London who is the daughter-in-law of a woman in Baghdad. Her husband had gone back to Baghdad to find out what had happened to his mother. Exactly the same thing had happened, but she had been arrested. She was aged 73. She was in a house on her own, with no other family around. People burst in at night, took all her money, jewellery and papers, and then took her away. She was kept in custody for more than three and a half weeks, which is illegal.
	That woman has now been released, but only because I spent considerable time during the holidays sending e-mails—I have them here—to someone on Ambassador Bremer's staff in Baghdad to try to find out where the woman was. She was held in Camp Cropper, where the major criminals are being held. People such as Tariq Aziz were taken to Camp Cropper. What was that woman doing there? What was the intelligence that put her there? Why has she now been released—I am very glad that she has been—without any of her papers, her money or her jewellery being returned? I understand from her daughter-in-law that she is quite frail, that she needs help and that her family wants to bring her to this country for a month or so.

Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend and I have had many deep differences of opinion on this issue, but I am deeply sympathetic to what she has been saying. Will she use her influence with the Ministry of Oil and the people whom she meets, because there is an idea that much of the destruction of pipelines that has taken place has been facilitated by disgruntled former members of the Ministry of Oil who are desperate for employment and doing it out of revenge? Will she also pursue an issue that she has often pursued in the past: bringing people to trial? In particular, whatever anyone thinks about Tariq Aziz, he ought to be brought to trial.

Ann Clwyd: I shall answer some of the points that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously of equal importance to the things that I have been mentioning is the delivery of basic services to the Iraqi people. The supply of water and electricity should be a priority. Of course, it is true to say that there have been many attacks on pipelines, pylons and the things that bring those services to people. It is incredible that, during the hot weather, people have not been able to get fuel for their air conditioning, fridges or the things that they need to make life more bearable, and something needs to be done about that very quickly.
	On my hon. Friend's second point, I was going to mention that Human Rights Watch has in the last few days called for the draft resolution being discussed by the United Nations Security Council to advance the cause of justice for Saddam Hussein's victims and for those charged with certain crimes. The resolution, which will of course be critical for mobilising international support and assistance for the stabilisation and reconstruction of Iraq, currently makes no mention of justice for serious past human rights crimes. That is a mistake, and I do not know what the argument for that is. The investigation and prosecution of crimes is essential.
	Indict has now been asked to provide victim statements to the CPA, because, over a six-year period, we collected enough such statements to incriminate the 10 leading members of the regime, some of whom are in custody, some of whom are dead, and one of whom is yet to be captured. Those are people on whom we hold evidence. I do not, however, intend to hand that over to the CPA until I know what system of justice will be put in place. We have promised the victims from whom we have taken statements that those will be handed over only to a responsible authority. I do not know who that will be at the CPA. I would be happy to hand that over if an international tribunal were to be set up, of which the UN and several others are in favour, but it has been pushed to one side as being too expensive—that is one reason that I have heard for saying that an international tribunal is not necessary for Iraq.
	Such an international investigation is still important, however. Apparently, there is an idea to pass the matter over to the judiciary in Iraq. Cases of the kind that we envisage would test even the most established judicial system, however, let alone one corrupted by years of international isolation and abuse of power. The existing Iraqi judiciary has little or no experience advocating criminal cases that last more than a few days, which is a far cry from the complexity of trials involving charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I would be glad to hear whether the Government have any idea what is to be done to set up a proper system of justice, because the victims of the regime and their families are owed that for what has happened to them.
	One of the things that I saw working in Iraq, for which I have been able to get help, was the free prisoners association in Baghdad for former prisoners of the regime. Immediately after the war was over, it collected documents from private houses, schools and prisons, and the files and documents in their thousands have been piled up to the ceilings in the house of a former head of the security service—the Mukhabarat—in Iraq. The names, prisons, date of execution and method of execution of all those victims are meticulously being entered into computers. Long lines of people can be seen trying to get into that building to find out whether the person of whom they have not heard for many years is on that list. It is a harrowing scene and I am glad that the coalition, with a lot of push from here, has managed to get that process operating. We must ensure that it continues to operate not only in Baghdad but in other major cities in Iraq where it is hoped that similar free prisoners' associations will be set up. They should be supported in their work of cataloguing the disappeared of Saddam's rule.
	I agree with those who have said that there are many positive signs in Iraq, particularly the Iraq governing council, the naming of Ministers and the first steps in the writing of a new Iraqi constitution. I mention Latif Rasheed, who is now Minister with responsibilities for water. He is a board member of Indict and is well known to us. Hoshyar Zebari is an old friend and he is now the Foreign Minister. There are many others who are now playing their part in the future of their country.
	Latif Rasheed called on the international community only a week or so ago to stop treating Iraqis like children. Let the Iraqis help their own country. Give them the opportunity to do so, and I am certain that we shall see an Iraq that we will be proud to say that we had some part in bringing about.

David Heath: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for whom I have a great deal of respect on these matters. The hon. Lady paints a balanced picture of what is happening in Iraq. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations said recently, it is an extraordinary situation when two founder members of the UN—indeed, two Security Council members—find themselves in occupation of another founder member without an express mandate from the UN. In the long term, that situation is clearly not sustainable.
	I opposed military action at the time it was taken. I have not resiled from that view. I still believe that what we saw at that time was a failure of diplomacy. Indeed, it was a failure of diplomacy through the UN. When the Foreign Secretary talks about his genuine efforts to find a consensus on the second resolution, he omits to say that he was seeking a consensus on the way to engage in military conflict rather than a consensus on how effectively to disarm and deal with Iraq with the agreement of other members of the Security Council. That was the basic failure from which so much else has flowed.
	I am delighted to say that some of the consequences that I most feared from the start of the military conflict have not come to pass. I was concerned that there would be a general and rapid destabilisation of the region. That has not happened, and I hope that it will not. I was concerned that we would see the advent of serious inter-ethnic and inter-denominational conflict in Iraq. That may be on its way, but it is not happening at the moment.
	I was worried about the increasing disjunction in international relationships and its effect on international bodies such as the UN and other treaty organisations of which the UK is a member. I think that I am more justified in saying that that did happen and that there is lasting damage—not irremediable damage—to those relationships.
	I thought that there would be an increased likelihood of terrorism. Sadly, I believe that to be the case. I find it an odd and specious argument that somehow it is encouraging that there should be a greater number of terrorists now operating within Iraq than there was because that gives us the opportunity to eliminate them. I believe that the conflict itself has spawned an increase in terrorism, and that we shall regret that in future.
	I was concerned that the international community would be diverted from its fight against international terrorism, particularly the al-Qaeda network. I believe that not only has there been a diversion not only of resources but of attention from an enemy that is a real and present threat. It may indeed strike in 45 minutes, either now or at any other time, and it requires a great deal more attention.
	I believed that there would be difficulties creating and maintaining peace in Iraq. Those difficulties were not only foreseeable but foreseen, not perhaps by those whose supine posture required them to accept anything that came from the White House or the Prime Minister but by people with a more intelligent view, who were asking what the exit strategy was, what the programme for reconstruction was, and how we should regard the transition after the conflict to a democratic Iraq. I am worried that many of those questions have still not been answered.
	We must, however, deal with the position as it is now. Some people argue, both outside and, indeed, inside the House, that we should say no to the military reinforcements requested by our commanders in the field. Indeed, they say that we should remove our forces altogether from the Iraq theatre. I find that position incomprehensible. Even those of us who were desperately against the war because we feared its consequences and believed that it was unjustified owe it not only to our forces who are stationed in Iraq in dangerous circumstances and people providing humanitarian support there but to the Iraqi people themselves to provide the greatest possible level of security. The pacification of Iraq is just as important, albeit of a different order, as the initial conflict to remove Saddam Hussein's regime. It takes different skills and different troops—it does not require the elite assault troops who were so successful in the initial stages. It requires different techniques, but it is desperately important that it now takes place.
	Inevitably, some people will engage in a certain amount of schadenfreude at the fact that the United States has had to go to the United Nations to ask for help and support in Iraq, which it earlier spurned. Some people say that the American and British Governments should sort out the problems to which they were party in the conflict. I think that that position is wrong and inappropriate, and is not espoused by nations and people in this country who want a peaceful and democratic Iraq with a reasonable degree of reconstruction. It is essential that that is based on UN participation.
	There have been problems, as the American Administration have periodically changed their position, both before and since the conflict. There seems to be a tug-of-war between the Department of Defence and the State Department, which has not yet been resolved. On some occasions, one Department is in the ascendancy, but on others it is the other. Occasionally, there seems to be a lack of communication within the US Administration and between the United States and the United Kingdom. I was deeply shocked by the Defence Secretary's revelation on Monday that he last spoke to Donald Rumsfeld on 29 July, which is a dereliction of duty of a high order. I am surprised that that has not been alluded to more often in our debates this week.
	Nevertheless, if the American Government are now in the position of needing to take a more multilateral approach, I applaud and encourage that. I want them to be supported by the United Kingdom and other countries, especially on the Security Council.
	That means that we need a new resolution. It should not be imposed by ultimatum, but negotiated in the way in which United Nations resolutions should always be negotiated—by seeking the support of other members and finding common positions. Such a resolution needs to be based on a guarantee of the financial and logistic support that, in many cases, only the United States of America can provide, and that guarantee must be secured for the long and not the short term. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, disruption of a country's civil arrangements has too often been followed by a disregard of the consequences.
	We need the resolution and the engagement of the United Nations because we need a better mix of military forces. We must strongly encourage the involvement of Muslim-based forces in Iraq. It is important that we have an exit strategy and some blueprint for future development in Iraq. That must be based not on opportunities for American, European Union or other business people to make a quick buck at the expense of the Iraqi people, but on a genuine programme for reconstruction that encourages everyone who can participate to do so. I believe that we need a new commitment from this Government and from the American Government to genuine co-operation in future.
	I happen to have picked a United Nations tie to wear today. The decision was purely subliminal; I do not think that I consciously intended to choose it. I think that I purchased it the last time I visited the United Nations. I made the visit at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time of the negotiations and met Dr. Blix, which I found extremely useful. I believe in the United Nations. I do not believe that it is a perfect organisation, but I believe that it is probably the least bad organisation to do the job that we want it to do in a very far from perfect world.

Harry Cohen: I thank the Liberal Democrats for allowing some of their parliamentary time for this important debate. They bravely and rightly opposed our going to war in Iraq, but some of my colleagues would say that were wrong so quickly to support the war once it had been declared. They have not proposed any timetable for the end of the occupation and still favour US leadership of the occupation. I think that that is misguided, as is their faith in the puppet, hand-chosen provisional Government involving Mr. Bremer, which has very little legitimacy. That is why I shall not support their motion.
	I think that the war was wrong, and I voted against it whenever the occasion arose. It was started without the clear second UN resolution that we were promised and Iraq was not a threat in any realistic understanding of the term. There was no evidence of a clear connection with al-Qaeda—a diversion from the real war on terror that has to be fought. There were no weapons of mass destruction. If there were any, they would have been discovered long before now. The UN inspectors were doing a good job and should have been given the extra time they asked for. The action was not a liberation, as we were told, but an occupation, as is acknowledged in the latest UN resolution.
	The war has not impacted favourably in terms of finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, although it was claimed that it would do so. The dossiers were flawed and inaccurate for all those reasons, and were not a proper justification for war. In fact, I think that the war was long planned by the United States and had probably long been committed to in private by our Prime Minister. The outcome has been the killing of about 30,000 people, the overwhelming majority of whom were Iraqis. The war turned a police state into a collapsed state; it was a victory for crime and anarchy and a boost to terrorism. It has made westerners more of a target today than they were previously.
	The security situation is dire, with as many US and British troops being killed as during the war itself. Civilians are being killed—we do not know in what numbers, because very little information is available. Civil liberties and the state of the nation's economy are at the same level, or lower, as they were under Saddam Hussein. Huge costs are being incurred—billions of pounds—and we are getting precious little information about how much it is costing us. There is a political cost, too, because it blows the Government, whom I want to succeed, off course.
	Huge resentment is building up in Iraq, as was summarised by the demonstrators who said, "Thanks—now leave." That is the approach that should be adopted. As the cost rises—in terms of lives, as well—the call is for other countries to engage in a significant way, but making that decision would mean risking the lives of their soldiers, and they will not do so unless the operation is under UN auspices and they have a full say in how to deal with the situation. The United States should, therefore, cede control to the United Nations, but President Bush is not prepared to do that, as he said in his speech only a couple of days ago. Those countries will find that many of their people say, "The US and the United Kingdom created the mess—let them get out of it themselves." The neo-cons who are close to the US Administration engaged in a lot of hissing and hurling of abuse at those nations, as well as at the United Nations. US troops are being killed as a result. There is a powerful case for the US ceding overall control to the UN; otherwise, it remains an occupation. That situation is damaging to the UN as well, because it is tied into it and is seen as being synchronised with the US. That puts it at risk.
	I am not in favour of more troops going to Iraq. As I said on Monday, they not only add to the cost, but become additional targets. They act as a crutch by discouraging Iraqis from coming forward to govern and administer themselves. Sending more troops effectively subsidises the United States, particularly its huge defence budget. What is in it for the countries that are being asked to do so? They are liable to be to be abused, dominated or treated as a competitor rather than as a proper partner. Last Friday, I heard a news item about the poor people of Oregon, who suffer from high unemployment, very low family incomes and welfare cuts: they have effectively been abandoned as a result of the policies of the Bush Administration. If we are going to subsidise the United States, let us do it through international aid support to those poor people of Oregon; at least that would not mean loss of life among our troops in Iraq.
	I favour a proper and swift handover to the Iraqis, which means having elections at an early date. If that results in Shi'as being elected, so be it. I cannot see how that would be worse than having puppets such as those in the provisional Government. I admit that some of them are good people, but they are hand-picked by the United States and lack legitimacy. One, Mr. Chalabi, was a proven fraudster in activities involving millions of pounds in Jordan, yet he is the United States' chosen one—the Pentagon's man.
	The Prime Minister talked about a prosperous and stable Iraq. I share that objective, but I am worried about even that, because if it remains a US puppet it could become a threat to its neighbours. I want a prosperous and stable Iraq, but not with such an agenda. Aid must flow into the infrastructure, and the US and the UK must be the principal donors. The electricity and water supplies must be restored. I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary's comments that there must be work for the Iraqis. It is deplorable that more than 50 per cent. are currently unemployed. Proper rebuilding, which is truly internationalised and not a greed-fest for US corporations, must take place.
	I do not understand why the Liberian model—the solution, not the events of the recent past—should not apply. Liberia requested 15,000 troops to stabilise the situation, which was ignored across the globe. However, the troops were African, with the US in the background. Why cannot there be an Arab-led UN force in Iraq, albeit financed by the UK and the US, but with troops from those countries in the background? The solution must be truly internationalised, through the UN, until it is truly "Iraqi-ised". That should happen as swiftly as possible.

Jenny Tonge: The debate has been interesting and useful. I shall begin by commenting on some of the contributions.
	I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not in his place because I should like to ask, "What is he on?" He accused some of us of not listening to the good news from Iraq—perhaps that is because there is so little to hear. However, when Armageddon has come and the world is in tatters, one could imagine him proclaiming, like a latter-day Dr. Pangloss:
	"All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."
	He never perceives the downside of anything. That makes for a wonderful personality but not always for an honest contribution.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a thoughtful speech, which made me think a lot, but he appears to be having a love affair with the USA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) pointed out, the rest of the world is not having a love affair with the USA, and that creates problems when it is in Iraq and running things.
	I welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and was interested in her comments. It was a thoughtful contribution from someone who knows Iraq well. She emphasised the terrible lack of security and the disorganisation in the country and rightly stressed the terrible humanitarian position.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he was relieved that the position had not affected the stability of the region. However, recent events in respect of the middle east road map lead me to believe that stability has been affected. I shall comment on that in more detail later. The position in Iraq has increased terrorism and the risk of it, not decreased it.
	It is no accident that we have held two debates in two days on Iraq. It reflects the fact that the Opposition and the British people no longer trust the Government, mainly because of their conduct since 11 September 2001 and their perceived—I emphasise that word—adherence to the policies of George Bush and his Administration. That adherence necessitated at least exaggerating—I am being kind today—the need for a war with Iraq. I shall not go into that because many hon. Members have done so.
	Another factor is the Government's failure to understand the need to find a way to peace in the middle east, or to realise that if failing to obey UN resolutions over many years means war on Iraq, the same must apply to Israel. That is how the issue is seen in much of the Arab world, whether we like it or not. The middle east problem should have been our first priority, not Iraq. I spent a memorable week in the middle east with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) earlier in the summer, when the troubles were beginning to escalate again. This is not the time for a debate on the middle east, but I trust that the Government will allow us to have one soon.
	Today, the Prime Minister referred to a "magnificent" victory in Iraq. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), was very upbeat about the situation. He certainly over-egged it—or should I say "sexed it up" a bit? He told us that reconstruction was taking place all over Iraq and that hospitals were open—never mind what is going on inside them. He said that children were going to school, and that electricity and water were on tap; the lion was truly lying down with the lamb. Whom was he kidding? Why, if everything is so good over there, has the Norwegian Refugee Council withdrawn all international staff from Iraq owing to the difficult security situation and the weak position of the United Nations? Why has the Red Cross announced a reduction of staff in Baghdad? Why has Oxfam withdrawn all its international staff from Iraq and requested that the UN be given a greater role? Why have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund put their work there on hold, and the World Food Programme transferred its functions from Iraq to Jordan and Kuwait, leaving only core staff in Baghdad? Even Balfour Beatty has said that it is backing off from its construction contracts in Iraq. That does not suggest a very peaceful situation.

George Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Tonge: Certainly. I am so glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place.

George Foulkes: May I interrupt the hon. Lady's catalogue of woe, which is very depressing, if not absolutely accurate? I gather that, before I was able to get back into the Chamber, she was expressing concern for my health. I can tell her that the only thing that is inspiring me is naturally produced adrenalin.

Jenny Tonge: I am glad that we have the answer to that question, but I should warn the right hon. Gentleman that adrenalin causes a rapid rise in blood pressure and can be very dangerous. If he would like to see me afterwards, I will give him a full consultation.
	The situation in Iraq is the result of little planning for the aftermath of the war, despite all the questions asked of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office in recent months. I want to pay tribute, however, to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who led the charge on these issues as long ago as last autumn, despite the enthusiasm of her Front Benchers for the rush to war with Iraq. She was there asking question after question, and holding meetings to discuss what was to happen after the war. She got no answers; I got no answers. There has been a failure to recognise that we had to win the peace. It should have been understood that establishing the rule of law was essential in any post-war situation: security, security, security. That has not happened.
	A recent Channel 4 survey found that 47 per cent. of Iraqis believe that life is worse now than before the war, and that gossip abounds. We might think that gossip is a trivial thing, but it is very important in a country where communications are not good and there is not a great deal of good radio and television. The stories go round. The old one, of course, is that the USA did it for the oil, or that they did it for Israel. A Channel 4 journalist told me last night, up in one of the Committee rooms, that an Iraqi had told her that Saddam Hussein was in league with George Bush and was currently at his ranch in Texas. It is all nonsense; it is all very funny.

George Foulkes: It sounds like my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher).

Jenny Tonge: People could be killed any time, accidentally or on purpose, so when all these stories are passed around they make the situation seem even more fragile and dangerous. Perceptions and gossip are all-important. That is why the United Nations must be given more authority. If the whole episode had been conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, the British people might still trust their Government.
	Whether or not the conspiracy theories of the film director Michael Moore in his brilliant book "Stupid White Men", which hon. Members will have read, or of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) are true, the way to reassure the Iraqis is to return control of the oilfields to them via the United Nations, and to ensure that aid programmes, reconstruction and contracts that are being handed out are handled by the United Nations, not the United States of America. That was promised to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) while the war was being pursued, and was one of the reasons for her resignation.
	The governance of Iraq must be by Iraqis; it is a secular state. I had some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said. The Iraqi people do not trust the ethnically balanced governing council of Iraq, because it was handpicked by the Americans. The United Nations should take political control in Iraq as soon as possible in the transition to the election of a proper Iraqi Government.
	It is absolutely essential that the United Nations be given a high profile. I accept that that will probably not lessen guerrilla activity in the short term as it is too late, but it will surely get the support of the Iraqi people and the Arab world, which is what is needed now.
	In a knee-jerk way, I would love to say, like several hon. Members, "UK troops out. The Bush Administration have made their bed in Iraq and now they must lie in it." That was a favourite expression of my mother's—leave them to it, serve them right, teach them a lesson, walk away. However, deep down I know that cannot happen; it is the coward's way out, as was eloquently stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
	The Government, supported by many Labour and Conservative Members, went into Iraq in our name. They had the majority and we have to live with that, but because of that decision the Iraqi people have had more suffering inflicted on them, to add to that in the 20-odd years under Saddam Hussein. I am persuaded that we must allow longer, and try harder, to make life better for the Iraqi people. We cannot abandon them now.
	It is time, however, to teach the George Bush Administration a lesson in world co-operation. They have withdrawn from so many international agreements and treaties. Sadly, the USA is seen as the most selfish nation on earth, and that is not fair on all the good Americans. It is now pay-back time. The Bush Administration must work with the United Nations and the European Union or face the consequences.

Hilary Benn: This has been an important and an extremely thoughtful debate about an issue that is of great concern to those on both sides of the House. I welcome the spirit and the tone of all the contributions, including that of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—I shall respond to one or two points that he raised—because they reflect the scale of the challenge that we face. As several hon. Members said, whichever Lobby we went into on 18 March, whichever view we took, all hon. Members recognise what needs to be done now to help the Iraqi people.
	The second feature of the debate has been the number of contributions reflecting Members' personal experience and commitment over, in some cases, many years, and the visits they have made to Iraq since the end of the conflict. Let me particularly acknowledge the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has been tireless in her advocacy of the rights of the people of Iraq. In the context of dealing with past human rights abuses, let me say that she has played a particular role in supporting those who, day after day, are trying to catalogue, uncover, report and bear witness to the reality of the 25 years or so of Saddam's regime. As she knows, it is important for there to be a process enabling the people responsible for those atrocities to be brought to justice. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Iraqi people to determine how that should be done, but as the UN Secretary-General said in July in a report to the Security Council, part of the role of the UN assistance mission is
	"engaging and supporting national dialogue and institutions to address accountability for past human rights violations".
	My hon. Friend's speech also gave us a sense of balance in terms of what is happening in Iraq today. We must not understate the scale of the challenge that we face—no one seeks to do that—but we should acknowledge that, while what is shown on our television screens and described in our newspapers gives part of the picture, the most newsworthy part, other things are going on in Iraq.
	Two constituents with family in Iraq visited my surgery on Saturday. When I asked "What is it like?", I was told "It is not quite as it is reported in the newspapers". The House should recognise that many things are happening at present—that aspects of normal life are being restored, but that there are real difficulties that we must address.
	Reconstruction was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Devizes and others. Of course we all recognise the problems of, in particular, restoring electricity and water supplies speedily. The Iraqi people's expectations are understandably high. The infrastructure is old and prone to breaking down—in some cases it has not worked for years—and pylons and pipes are being sabotaged and looted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was right to make that point. He asked, legitimately, why the restoration was taking so much longer than it did after what happened in 1991. Part of the answer is that Saddam used very different measures to deal with those who transgressed the rule of his country. That is not a route that we intend to take.
	Let me say to my right hon. Friend in all honesty that the charge that nothing is being done is simply not justified. The Department has supported an extensive programme of practical help and reconstruction, much of which—as my right hon. Friend knows—has been implemented by the UN and other agencies. Why have we provided funds? Because having the UN agencies on the ground is the most effective way of ensuring that the work is done, and done quickly. I shall return to that point later.
	Today I placed in the Library a note giving updated details of our support, including the £20 million programme of investment in the restoration of power and infrastructure in the multinational division south-east area for which we have a particular responsibility—a responsibility that we accept.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, which takes us forward a little, but what I am trying to ascertain is how many civilian engineering contracts have been issued. We are not talking about work that can be done by soldiers or aid agencies; we are talking about major engineering work. How many contracts have actually been signed?

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my very next point, on the question of contracts. So that we get a sense of the scale of support, it might help the House if I point out that DFID has made funding agreements with 11 United Nations agencies, which are worth more than £76 million; provided support for the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, to the tune of £32 million; provided support for 14 non-governmental organisations, which is worth more than £5 million; and established 10 contracts with commercial companies, which are worth more £32 million. Many of those funding agreements and contracts themselves involve multiple subcontracts for work on the ground in Iraq.
	I shall make available further details of the programme that we are embarking on in the multinational division south-east, which is directed at improving the infrastructure. I acknowledge, given today's contributions, the strength of feeling and concern that exists throughout the House that we should be seen to be making progress, particularly in that part of the country in which we have direct responsibility, and in which the people look to us for progress.
	My second point on reconstruction is that a lot more help is going to be needed, as hon. Members recognise. That is why the donors conference, which is scheduled to take place in Madrid at the end of October, will be so important. In particular, it will draw on the work of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, in terms of their assessment of Iraq's reconstruction and financial support needs.
	To get a greater sense of balance, it might help if I tell the House what the executive director of the World Food Programme, Mr. James Morris, had to say about DFID's role in a letter to us of 5 September:
	"Since early March 2003, DFID has been an integral partner for WFP in providing specialists in customs and air movement. This ensured that the UN could fully resume its work in Iraq in the shortest time possible.
	On behalf of WFP, I would like again to express our gratitude for the magnificent assistance provided by DFID to our work".
	I put that on the record simply to show that the WFP, a UN agency, has played a really important part—with our support and that of other donors—in ensuring the provision of food to the people of Iraq, a country in which, we should remember, 60 per cent. of the people have been dependent on food aid.
	Finally on reconstruction, in a plea for perspective, balance and understanding I should point out that it is very unfortunate if the charge be laid that somehow nothing is being done. Above all, that is a slur on the hard work and dedication of many DFID and Government staff. They have been working very long hours in difficult conditions in Baghdad and Basra to make things happen, and, as we know since the UN bombing, at some personal risk. They deserve our thanks and support for the work that they are doing and will do, and I want to place on the record my thanks, and that of Baroness Amos, particularly to the staff in our Department.
	When we discuss, rightly, the vital role that we want the UN to play in the reconstruction of Iraq, we need to recognise the vital role that it has already been playing in helping Iraq and the Iraqi people to build a new future. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised that point in his speech, particularly when he referred to Security Council resolution 1483. The resolution made it very clear how wide-ranging the UN mandate in Iraq should be: including the political process, human rights, humanitarian assistance, economic reconstruction, and reform of the police, judiciary and civil administration. All of those elements need to be in place, alongside the restoration of water and power supplies,if a country is to function effectively.
	The UN agencies were active even while military action was taking place, ensuring the continuity of humanitarian supplies. Since then, the UN and its agencies, particularly the special representative, about whom I shall say more a little later, have done a great deal to fulfil that vital role—until the terrorist attack on the Canal hotel on 19 August that killed so many people.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) talked about the consequence of the current security situation and the impact of the bombing on the UN and other NGOs working in the country. Inevitably, and quite rightly, the UN has had to review its own arrangements for security and its presence on the ground. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear the offer of support that we have given to the UN in that process. I made the same point in a conversation with Ramiro Lopez da Silva, who is in charge of the operation, when I spoke to him in Baghdad three days after the bomb went off.
	Once the UN has been able to deal with those concerns about security and to make appropriate provision for its staff, we need to support those members of staff in their return and to support the many NGOs that have been playing an important role in helping the Iraqi people in practical ways.
	The third and, without doubt, the most important thing that has come out of the debate is the recognition that progress on security and on the political process need to go hand in hand; a point made forcefully by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Progress on the handover of political power to the Iraqis and on the restoration of basic services depends on improving security, which is why the Government have taken the steps announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday.
	We have to welcome and support the resolve of the international community in the face of the terrorist attacks to contribute further to guaranteeing security in Iraq. That is precisely what the draft resolution—which Members on both sides have welcomed—does in calling for a new mandate with a multinational force coming under a single chain of command with existing coalition forces. Almost all Members recognise the need for that structure. In answer to the specific question about the reporting arrangements, the draft resolution makes it clear that the command structure would report to the Security Council on a regular basis.
	We need to make progress quickly on the political process, and the single most significant event since the end of the war was the establishment of the governing council. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—who referred to the council members as puppets—that I have met four members of the governing council. I did not have a conversation with puppets; I had a conversation with men and women who now see, at last, an opportunity for Iraq to have the future that they want for themselves, their families and the people whom they represent at the moment.
	There is no political or democratic process that we can pull off the shelf and put in place instantly. We have to take it a stage at a time. The establishment of the governing council was the single most important step so far because it demonstrates that when we say that we do not want to run the country and that we want the people of Iraq to do so, we mean it. The council members are getting on with the job and have appointed the Ministers to work with them in that process. Increasingly, I hope that we will see more of the decisions being made by them because it is to them that we look to get working the process of getting the country back on its feet. They have now appointed members to take forward the constitutional process, and we look to them to answer the legitimate question about the next steps in the timetable.
	The Iraqi people must have a clear sense of when they will be in a position to take control of their own affairs, and that will help the international community to focus its support on helping the governing council and to hold the latter to its commitments. Again, this is an area in which the UN has an important role to play.
	Everybody—whether it is the Iraqi governing council, the new Ministers, the coalition, the UN, other donors or Members in this House—recognises that our task is to give help, and help now—

Andrew Stunell: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 285.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House supports the vital role played by the United Nations in Iraq as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1500 (2003); pays tribute to the Secretary General's Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello and his colleagues brutally murdered in the terrorist atrocity of 19th August; welcomes the determination of the United Nations Secretary General to remain engaged in Iraq; further welcomes the initiation of discussions on a new UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq, which aims to reaffirm the United Nations' support for the work of the Governing Council, calls on the Governing Council to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections, proposes a United Nations-mandated multinational force under existing unified command arrangements and encourages UN Member States and international organisations to help the Iraqi people by providing resources for rehabilitation and reconstruction at next month's conference in Madrid.

Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference

Motion made,
	That—
	(1) There shall be a standing committee, called the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference on the Future of Europe.
	(2) At any sitting of the standing committee, the chairman may permit a Minister or Ministers to make statements on the Inter-Governmental Conference, and questions may then be put thereon by Members:
	Provided that no proceedings under this paragraph may continue after the expiry of a period of one and a half hours from their commencement, except with the leave of the chairman.
	(3) At the conclusion of proceedings under paragraph (2), the committee may consider either of the following—
	(a) when a written report has been laid before Parliament by a Minister or Ministers, a Motion proposed from the chair 'That the committee has considered the report of [date] on the Inter-Governmental Conference'; or
	(b) a Motion for the adjournment of the committee, provided that a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a subject relating to the Inter-Governmental Conference for the debate on the adjournment not later than five days before the sitting.
	(4)(a) The chairman shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on any Motion under paragraph (3)(a), if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours; and the chairman shall thereupon report that the committee has considered the report of [date] on the Inter-Governmental Conference, without putting any further Question;
	(b) in case of a Motion under paragraph (3)(b), the chairman shall adjourn the committee without putting any question, not later than two and a half hours after the committee has begun sitting.
	(5)(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order No. 86, the standing committee shall consist of those Members of the House nominated for the time being to the European Scrutiny Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 143) and to the Foreign Affairs Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 152); and
	(b) any Member of the House, not being a member of the committee, may take part in the proceedings of the committee and be counted in the quorum, but shall not vote or make any motion, except that any member of the government may move a Motion under paragraph (3)(b).
	(6) Members of the House of Lords may participate in the committee's proceedings, but no member of that House may vote or make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
	That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.—[Joan Ryan.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Machinery of Government Changes: Amendments to Standing Orders

Motion made,
	That—
	(1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland';
	(2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales';
	(3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:
	(a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';
	(b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';
	(4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:
	(a) before item 1 insert
	
		
			  
			 '1 Constitutional Affairs Department for Constitutional 11';  
			  Affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland) 
		
	
	(b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;
	(c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and
	(5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Joan Ryan.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Environmental Audit

Motion made,
	That Mr Michael Meacher be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Elliot Morley be added.—[Joan Ryan.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Public Accounts

Ordered,
	That Geraint Davies and Mr George Howarth be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Jon Cruddas and Jim Sheridan be added.—[Joan Ryan.]

Asperger's Syndrome

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

Angela Browning: On 23 October 2001, I introduced an Adjournment debate on Asperger's syndrome and autistic spectrum disorder. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is on the Treasury Bench, as he also attended that debate. At the time, he was chairman of the all-party group on autism and I cannot think of a better person, one with as much experience and knowledge of the subject, to respond to the debate.
	I want to move on from that debate in 2001 and focus especially on Asperger's syndrome and mental health services. Although many symptoms of autism are present in people diagnosed with Asperger's, there is a difference, as such people generally have good language skills and may be of average or high intelligence. However, they demonstrate many of the traits associated with autism, which results in communication problems and, sometimes, ritualistic behaviour. They can experience difficulty in social relationships, causing a sense of isolation, especially in adolescents and adults.
	Too few appropriate packages of support are available and they can often be obtained only when there is a crisis. However, where health and social services work together, especially with agencies that specialise in the management of autism, the results can be good, not least because stress and anxiety are reduced, thus reducing the patient's mental health needs and an unacceptably high suicide rate among that group.
	Although the causes of Asperger's syndrome and autism have yet to be positively identified, research to date shows that they are related to a physical dysfunction of the brain that may have more than one cause, including a genetic base. What Asperger's is not is an illness, nor are the behavioural symptoms exhibited by people with the syndrome caused by psychosis.
	Management of the condition is best addressed by individually tailored packages of support. They will not cure the condition—it is lifelong—but they will vastly improve the quality of life for the sufferer and maximise their opportunities for living independently. We are talking about a vulnerable group of people, who have a strange mix of abilities, which can mask characteristics that may include obsessive behaviour and lack of imagination, resulting in their not being streetwise, yet can be coupled with a range of educational abilities, up to degree level and beyond.
	Behaviour may be challenging, especially if routines are interrupted or the individual is faced with unexpected changes, such as a break with a familiar environment or people. People with the condition can be quirky at best and, at worst, threatening to those who are not familiar with their behaviour. Such behaviour is almost always triggered by events rather than an emotional response. It is in that context that I shall focus on adults and adolescents who, under stress and perhaps presenting strange or challenging behaviour, find themselves in contact with mental health services, especially in-patient treatment.
	It is true, of course, that people with Asperger's can become mentally ill, as with any other person. Indeed, depression is particularly common in that group. As I pointed out in my debate in 2001, apart from any physiological reason, such as low serotonin levels in the body, it is not rocket science to understand why, by adulthood, people with Asperger's syndrome—desperate for the social and employment opportunities in which they see their peer group participating, but finding themselves friendless, locked out and socially isolated because of their inability to relate to other people—start to become depressed and demonstrate behaviour that, frankly, is quite obvious to those who study the condition and understand it. Who among us would not become depressed if we had tried so hard, as many with Asperger's do, to normalise—for want of a better word—our behaviour only to find that we cannot break through the glass wall that divides us from the rest of society?
	Given my work with autism charities and in assisting those who seek to improve the lives of those in the Asperger's group, I feel prompted to raise the issue again in the House because of the pattern of treatment that has clearly developed throughout this country, particularly in provincial mental health hospitals. Very few provincial psychiatrists have been trained in either the diagnosis or management of Asperger's syndrome and even fewer have gained the experience, as part of their working lives, to be able to distinguish between a mental health condition and what many of us regard as normal autistic behaviour, which even professional psychiatrists may well interpret as something quite different.
	A level of expertise is required. For example, if someone with Asperger's develops symptoms of schizophrenia, very few psychiatrists in this country have the expertise to differentiate between autistic symptoms and a genuine case of schizophrenia. Yet, day after day, people with Asperger's syndrome are admitted to mental health hospitals and find themselves being diagnosed and treated by people with that lack of experience. So they fall foul—I use that phrase quite deliberately—of the mental health services, as in-patients. They are often sectioned under existing mental health legislation.
	All too frequently around the country, we find that those in that group are being treated in a way that would not be tolerated in any other part of health care. It is all too common for psychiatrists even to ignore an existing diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. That is astonishing. One professional has made a diagnosis, yet all too often another professional, who is responsible for caring for the person with Asperger's, refuses to accept the diagnosis. Behavioural symptoms are not recognised as normal autistic behaviour. They are often treated with strong drugs that have little or no effect on the symptoms, but in themselves cause yet another problem for those with Asperger's. When a drug does not work, psychiatrists work their way through the prescribing lists, building a cocktail of medication that fails to address the symptoms. Why should it address the symptoms if the underlying cause is physiological?
	It is common for people with Asperger's to be misdiagnosed as schizophrenic and given medication on that basis. Many of those cases result in long hospital stays, with all the damage of long-term neuroleptic drugs, the effect of which needs to be addressed. I know that I need not emphasise this to the Minister, but those are not isolated cases. The problem is becoming increasingly common, even in the casework that Members of Parliament have to take up on behalf of our constituents. The Minister will be aware that we have held meetings in the House with the carers of people who have been treated in that way, so we know of the absolute distress and pressure on those carers.

Liz Blackman: Does not what the hon. Lady is saying point to the fundamental requirement for multi-disciplinary teams to be set up early for autistic young people, including those with Asperger's syndrome?

Angela Browning: The hon. Lady has a great deal of knowledge and experience of this subject, and I agree with her. It is necessary for the professionals—the multidisciplinary teams that she talks about—to become actively involved at an early stage in the management of the case. If that worked everywhere—it works in some places—we would not see so many of these people coming under the auspices of the mental health services in the first place.
	When those carers try to make representations and to be advocates on behalf of their adult children or—if they are not relatives—on behalf of the in-patient, the health professionals all too often simply will not listen to them. The House will be aware of a high-profile case that has gone to court and is still pending—R v. Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS trust. I have the carers' permission to quote their experience. They told me personally that when they tried to become involved, they were described by the psychiatrist as "unco-operative". When they pressed further, the term "abusive" was applied to describe them as carers. Finally, when, at their wits' end, they tried to explain to these so-called professionals how this person actually behaved because of his autism, it was suggested that they had mental health problems themselves. That is outrageous. Their knowledge of the individual concerned and the way that he behaved was key to his management and treatment, yet it was not wanted by the psychiatrist. That is an example of arrogance—not of all psychiatrists, as we could all name some who are doing a jolly good job in this area—that should not be tolerated.
	Most of the damage done to in-patients will occur in the first four to six weeks, through a combination of inappropriate medication, finding themselves in an environment that exacerbates their difficulties in managing their behaviour, and through carers and parents being resisted by professionals and given the minimum amount of access. That cannot be tolerated. I therefore urge the Minister to introduce the following measures as a matter of urgency.
	First, unless a psychiatrist has received an accredited training course and has a recognised working knowledge of the treatment of Asperger's syndrome and autism, a second opinion on the treatment and management of that individual patient must be sought from another professional who has that expertise as an input to the case. Secondly, the Department of Health should set up an immediate investigation into the number of adolescents and adults with an Asperger's syndrome diagnosis who have also been treated for schizophrenia, as we should know how many of these people are being misdiagnosed and mismedicated. When an undiagnosed adult is suspected of having Asperger's syndrome, a referral must be made to a professional who has experience of autism. Diagnosis of adults cannot be learned from a textbook. It takes years of work. It is much more complex than the diagnosis of children, and there are people who have reached their 20s, 30s, 40s and even 50s before being diagnosed, as other factors must be looked for. That requires a huge level of expertise.

Paul Flynn: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on an important subject. The doubts that she has raised about the effects of neuroleptic drugs have been experienced by a large number of people in residential homes for the elderly and by many women in prison. Will a call for such an investigation include a general investigation of the effects of neuroleptic drugs among many other people?

Angela Browning: I would not disagree with that at all. We all have concern about this area, and we would like to know much more about it. I know that the hon. Gentleman has knowledge of this area, and I would certainly like to know more.
	On my list of what I would like the Minister urgently to consider is the requirement for all primary care trusts to identify their autism and Asperger's professionals for in-patient care and community care—from community psychiatric nurse level to consultants in hospitals—and to implement a structured training and accreditation programme. They should also draw up a referral list, even if it is out of area, so that those people who do not have the expertise know of a professional on whom they can call for case-by-case referral.
	If I need an operation for a broken leg, I would expect an orthopaedic surgeon to deal with it. If I were admitted to hospital with a heart condition, I would not expect to be medicated for some other condition. It seems that psychiatrists are laws unto themselves. There is an ignorance and an arrogance that permeates their approach to Asperger's syndrome that is all too common.
	In the advice to carers, many of us who are involved in dealing with individual casework, including Members, are not prepared to accept the status quo. It is becoming more common for cases to be tested in the courts. I believe that many more cases will be so tested if the situation is allowed to continue. It is criminal.
	I have many files of heart-rending casework. I will not quote from them because I know that those Members who are in their places will have had to deal with such casework in their constituencies. I know that they will understand the heartbreak for the individual and their carers when they come up against a system that treats them in this way. It is leading to family breakdown, where increasingly ageing parents and carers bear the strain of lack of provision, of failure to diagnose or even a failure to recognise diagnosis on the part of other professionals. In some cases, this has led to permanent damage caused by inappropriate medication.
	I can think of no other area of health care where this situation would be permitted. These patients are the least able to self-advocate, yet the people who could advocate for them—their immediate carers—are sidelined. It is cruel and it is unjust, and it must stop.

Stephen Ladyman: It is a great pleasure for me—I know that Ministers always say that when they come to the Dispatch Box to respond to Adjournment debates, but on this occasion it is truer than usual—to respond and to congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on raising the issue again. I know that we are not allowed to refer to Opposition Members as right hon. or hon. Friends, but on this subject I would like to think of the hon. Lady in that way. She has made many constructive suggestions, while speaking with much feeling and compassion.
	Becoming a Minister was a joy for me. The one thing that I regretted, however, was that I had to give up chairing the all-party group on autism. The only consolation is that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) has agreed to take over. I look forward to working with her and the rest of the group in my new capacity.
	In one fell swoop, I moved from being Chairman of the all-party group on autism to Minister with responsibilities for autism. Although I hope to move the agenda forward as aggressively as possible, I have been a Minister for slightly fewer than 100 days, so I am not yet in a position to make all the decisions that I would like to make, nor to understand all the ramifications of the things that I would like to do in this context. I know that the hon. Lady will accept that I shall reflect deeply on her comments and shall do my best to implement some of her constructive ideas, and that she will not expect me to commit myself this evening.
	As we all know, autism is a complex and distressing condition, not only for those affected by it, but for their families and carers. The hon. Lady was right to emphasise the role of carers, in terms not only of what they contribute to the person with autism, but of their responsibility and their opportunity to help advocate on behalf of autistic people. That is something that we forget when reflecting on the contribution of carers. I wanted to acknowledge that now before I move on any further. I shall certainly look at opportunities to help carers. My portfolio includes all long-term conditions, and I am well aware of the role of carers in all such conditions. I shall take on board the hon. Lady's comments—I am well aware that autistic people often need their carers to be advocates on their behalf.
	Asperger's syndrome, as the hon. Lady said, is a developmental disorder on the autistic spectrum, and is a social disability rather than an illness. In the context of tonight's debate, we need to emphasise the fact that people on the autistic spectrum are more likely than the rest of the population to have a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. The hon. Lady highlighted two issues. First, problems arise when a condition on the autistic spectrum is confused with a mental illness, leading to someone being treated for mental illness. However, because they are autistic, the treatment will have no effect and will be entirely inappropriate. Indeed, it may be distressing and damaging, and will not help the autistic person because the things that need to be done to help them are not being done.
	Secondly, when an autistic person has a separate mental condition, we need to make sure that that is recognised and treated. Let me make something clear for the record: if someone in the primary care system or social services believes that an autistic person may have a mental illness, they can be referred to mental health services, and must be assessed and treated for it in the same way as anybody else. People should not sit in their office thinking, "This person's autistic—I cannot refer them to mental health services." If there is any reason to believe that someone has a mental health condition, they should be referred to mental health services because they are entitled to treatment for that condition, as long as the assessment is made, as the hon. Lady pointed out, by people who are skilled in recognising autism as well as the mental health condition.
	The hon. Lady asked how I shall ensure that that is done, and I have to reflect on that. If I were to introduce regulations—my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash pointed this out eloquently in her intervention—that may affect the multidisciplinary teams that need to be set up. I might regulate in a way that hampered the setting-up of those multidisciplinary teams. We may not want to make it mandatory for an autistic person to be seen by someone who is skilled in the treatment of autistic conditions. We may want them to be seen by a multidisciplinary team that includes expertise in autism, rather than by a psychiatrist who has training in autism and mental health issues. I shall reflect on the way in which we can best achieve that, and whether or not regulation is appropriate. I shall reflect on how we make sure that we distinguish between autism and the mental health issue, and how we make sure that we are going the right way about identifying mental health issues.
	The appropriateness of medication is a related issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is right that if people are treated with drugs—I am not a clinical professional, so I am not in a position to judge whether drugs are appropriate or not—we must remember that they have side effects. We must make sure that the right drugs are used at the right time. If the autistic spectrum disorder has been confused with a mental health issue, the autistic person may well be getting drugs that are entirely inappropriate, with distressing results for both them and their carers.
	An important time for interventions that may prevent serious mental health issues from developing in adulthood is childhood and adolescence. The standards and targets that we are setting in the forthcoming children's national service framework are intended to help improve services for disabled children, including those with autism. The hon. Lady will be aware that the national service framework for children will include an autism exemplar. We will be developing national standards across the national health service, social care and the interface with education. That will relate to the way in which we handle autistic people and how they are referred for services.
	The NSF will include pathways and exemplar diagrams illustrating the optimum approaches to delivering services in a number of different areas. The all-party parliamentary group on autism sponsored the national initiative on autism screening and assessment report, which is now called the national autism plan for children. That will form an important part of the package of care that we shall build to address issues relating to children with autism.
	We must recognise that children with autism, whether or not they have a learning disability, are more vulnerable to a full range of mental health disorders, both as a result of their underlying neurological dysfunction and the additional social, family and emotional stresses of everyday life. The child and adolescent mental health services see children and young people with autism who also have mental health problems. As the hon. Lady said, however, specialist care from CAMHS professionals with expertise in learning disability, autism and child and adolescent mental health problems are in very short supply.
	As we are aware of the shortcomings of existing provision, the Department published an outline of a comprehensive CAMHS in the "Emerging Findings" document for the children's national service framework. The requirement to develop a comprehensive service was also set out in the CAMHS 2003 circular to health services and local authorities, which was published on 17 January this year. "Emerging Findings" requires a comprehensive service to take account of the full range of needs locally, including those arising from a learning disability or from autistic spectrum disorders. Each local CAMHS development strategy should outline progress towards the establishment of a comprehensive service and refer to children with an autistic spectrum disorder.
	The Department's public service agreement targets set an agenda to improve significantly the services for children and young people with mental health problems. The specific target is to:
	"Improve life outcomes of adults and children with mental health problems through year on year improvements in access to crisis and CAMHS services; and reduce the mortality rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least 20 per cent. by 2010."
	The priorities and planning framework capacity assumptions underpinning that target are that all CAMHS are to provide a comprehensive service, including mental health promotion and early intervention, by 2006; and that all CAMHS will be increased by at least 10 per cent. a year across the service in accordance with agreed local priorities. To support those challenges, the Government will invest an additional £250 million in CAMHS provided by local authorities and the national health service.
	On adult mental health services, it would be naive to believe that success in improving CAMHS will remove the need for services for adults with Asperger's syndrome and mental health problems. It is also important that we deliver improvements in adult mental health services. When we came to office, we set mental health as a priority for reform, alongside cancer and coronary heart disease. We did so because we believed that the service when we came to power was demoralised and under-supported, and desperately needed to move forward. We had no national standards at that time. Mental health law had been overtaken by developments in services and society. Financial constraints were crippling those with responsibility for providing care, and local services did not have the freedom to make choices that were right for their populations.
	The significance of that situation is difficult to overstate. As many as one in six of the population is affected by a mental health problem, and many more families and children are indirectly affected each year. More than 600,000 people with serious mental ill health receive care from specialist mental health and social care services, and suicide is now the commonest cause of death among young men. I am well aware of the suicidal thoughts to which many people with Asperger's syndrome refer in their conversations, letters and writings.
	Those are some of the reasons why the Government prioritised mental health service reform. Our national service framework for mental health was the first NSF to be published. It set out seven standards for modern health and social care, covering health promotion, primary care, mental health, specialised services for people with severe mental illness—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
	 — 
	Local Government Finance (England)

That the Special Grant Report (No. 123) (HC 778) on the Social Services (High Performers No. 2) Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 389, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Local Government Finance (England)

That the Special Grant Report (No. 124) (HC 777) on the Delayed Discharges Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 40.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Local Government Finance (England)

That the Special Grant Report (No. 123) (HC 778) on the Social Services (High Performers No.2) Grant for 2003–04, dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 387, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.